ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Council Tax

Stephen Metcalfe: What steps his Department has taken to freeze council tax charges since 2010-11.

Eric Pickles: Under the previous Administration, household budgets were severely squeezed as council tax more than doubled. By contrast, this Government have worked to freeze council tax. Across England, bills have fallen by 11% in real terms since 2010 thanks to our freeze.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he reassure the House that he will do everything he can to help councils keep taxes low, and will he confirm that he will reject Labour’s call for a tax on family homes in England that would fill Scotland’s coffers?

Eric Pickles: I am very happy to confirm that we have no plans to introduce a family homes tax. The principal problem with the proposal is that, were it to be introduced, the amount raised from those in the top band would be inadequate, so people living in an ordinary home would wake up the day after the election and find themselves in a mansion.

Andy Slaughter: Will the Secretary of State congratulate Hammersmith and Fulham council on cutting council tax while at the same time abolishing home care charges, cutting the price of meals on wheels by a third and employing more neighbourhood police officers? Does that not make it his favourite council—perhaps even the apple of his eye?

Eric Pickles: I am pleased that the new administration in Hammersmith and Fulham is building on the fine work of the previous Conservative administration, which did more than just freeze council tax; it cut it by 3% each year, from appalling record levels. The new Labour administration has been able to take full advantage of those efficiencies.

Nigel Evans: Will the Secretary of State congratulate Ribble Valley council, which has frozen its council tax for the past five years without reducing the level of services? If Ribble Valley council can do it, anybody can. The only thing missing in some councils is the political will.

Eric Pickles: I congratulate Ribble Valley council, which is clearly the apple of my eye. I know it to be very efficient. Income levels in the Ribble valley are better because local councillors are dedicated to keeping council tax down.

Gisela Stuart: Council tax rates and council tax bands are closely linked. I try not to believe everything I read in the newspapers, but a few years ago The Daily Telegraph reported:
	“Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, who oversees local government, has also opposed any move to change council tax bands. He has ordered officials to destroy data collected by previous governments that could allow a widespread rebanding of properties.”
	Is that so? If not, what data are available?

Eric Pickles: There was an attempt by the previous Administration to operate a spy system whereby people would be taxed if they had a good view, or if they did not have a good view; if they were close to a bus station, or if they were further away. Frankly, I do not think that it is right for councils to go into people’s homes to measure their bathrooms and look at their views. I regard that as a fundamental intrusion into the British way of life.

Local Authority Spending

Mike Kane: What assessment he has made of the effect of real-terms cumulative changes in local authority spending power on services in communities with the greatest needs since 2010-11.

Toby Perkins: What assessment he has made of the effect of real-terms cumulative changes in local authority spending power on services in communities with the greatest needs since 2010-11.

Kris Hopkins: Since 2010, we have delivered fair local government finance settlements to every part of the country. All councils have balanced their budgets, and most have reduced council tax in real terms and maintained public satisfaction with services. Councils facing the highest demand for services continue to receive more funding and have higher spending than less deprived authorities.

Mike Kane: According to the BBC, Greater Manchester councils are preparing for another cut of £250 million this year, which is in addition to the £1.2 billion taken out of their budgets since 2010. Given the Public Accounts Committee’s conclusion that the Department for Communities and Local Government had limited understanding of the impact of the cuts on services, are Ministers not out of touch?

Kris Hopkins: Every part of Government has had to respond to the challenges left by the previous Administration. It should be noted that now each authority does not have to rely just on its grant; it has the ability to raise money itself. Manchester has been very successful at that, securing many millions of pounds through its business tax retention and the new homes bonus. Manchester has also been very successful in securing a multi-million-pound growth deal.

Toby Perkins: The PAC report made it clear that councils with the greatest spending needs—the most deprived authorities—receive the largest reductions. The Minister talks about the challenges facing them. He will know that the challenges facing the local authority in Chesterfield are twice those facing the local authority that the Secretary of State is responsible for.
	Is it not true that the reason why the areas with the greatest deprivation are facing the biggest cuts is that Tory Governments always redistribute money from the poorest people to the richest? If the disabled, the elderly and the vulnerable in my constituency want to do something about the situation, they should not complain to this Government—they should chuck them out in May.

Kris Hopkins: The most deprived authorities receive 40% more than the least deprived. The PAC and the NAO recognised that, on the whole, local authorities have responded well to the cuts and that every single authority has managed to balance its budgets. It should be noted that local authorities have significantly increased their reserves during this period. The reason why each part of Government is having to respond to these financial challenges is the economic incompetence of the previous Government. I am sure that the public out there will not want to give the Labour party the reins of power again.

Andrew Bridgen: For decades, my local authority in Leicestershire has been one of the lowest-funded county councils. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that in reaching a figure in the local government settlement, account will be taken of how efficient a council already is?

Kris Hopkins: I have received representations from my hon. Friend’s council, and I do recognise the enormous amount of work that is going on. Given the economic circumstances, we try to show a direction of travel regarding councils with significant rural coverage, and we have increased the moneys by some £15.5 million this time.

Stephen Mosley: I represent a constituency in the north of England, where we see huge variations in the spending power of local councils, but also huge variations in how councils are dealing with the situation. My own Conservative Cheshire West and Chester council has redesigned services, sharing them and making them more efficient to protect the taxpayer, whereas neighbouring councils are looking at cutting services, closing libraries and making the taxpayer pay for their mistakes. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Kris Hopkins: The track record shows that Conservative-led administrations are facing up to the issues that we all face. I have seen everything that my hon. Friend’s council has done, including the excellent homeless support services that it offers. Even the most difficult and vulnerable people out there are being protected by well-thought-out responses to the economic challenges we face.

Andy Sawford: The National Audit Office says that local government has faced 37% cuts on average, and hon. Members have highlighted just how unfair those cuts are. Why is the Department refusing to publish figures that show the real-terms, year-on-year changes by local authority, as the NAO and now the Public Accounts Committee have urged? Are the Government frightened to lay bare just how grotesquely unfair their policies are to the poorest communities?

Kris Hopkins: Every year we have published all our figures. We go out there and consult councils on the figures that we offer. This time we gave indicative figures for not only last year but this year, and there have been plenty of opportunities for people to scrutinise those figures. I should point out that the NAO figures do not include the better care fund or the public health grant.

Council Tax

Henry Smith: What estimate he has made of the number of local authorities who are planning to raise council tax by more than 1.99% in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement.

Eric Pickles: Councils have yet to set their budgets. I encourage every local council to take up this year’s offer of additional funding to freeze council tax. If they want to hike up council tax, they should put that to the people in a referendum.

Henry Smith: A recent TaxPayers Alliance study identified that the chief executive of Pembrokeshire council had a Porsche funded at a cost of some £90,000 and that, in Camden, £3.25 million had been spent on so-called gagging orders for employees who were leaving. What more can be done to bear down on these unnecessary costs that burden the taxpayer?

Eric Pickles: Transparency is the order of the day. It is sad that the kind of information available to English taxpayers is not available to their Welsh counterparts. With regard to Mr Bryn Parry Jones’s Porsche, if any chief executive puts in a Porsche as part of their terms of contract, I think that is a cry for help. The chap is obviously suffering from a mid-life crisis, and the council would have been better spending money on getting him some professional help.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering borough council, of which I am privileged to be a member, has frozen its council tax throughout the lifetime of this Parliament and now proposes to cut car parking charges. Will those practical and popular policies help local people tackle the cost of living?

Eric Pickles: I do not know which I like best—my hon. Friend’s council or Ribble Valley council—but that is my kind of council. This is about bringing in jobs and work, making it easy for people to shop, and showing some respect to the electorate. My hon. Friend’s electorate are singularly fortunate in their council and in their representative.

Local Plans (Accessibility Standards)

Yasmin Qureshi: What steps the Government plan to take to ensure that high accessibility standards are incorporated into local plans.

Stephen Williams: Our planning policy is clear that authorities should plan for accessible communities, and guidance further
	promotes accessible and inclusive design. We are also reviewing housing standards so that they provide for more accessible homes, and all public bodies are bound by the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010, which promotes inclusion.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Government estimate that a three-bedroom home built to the proposed category 2 costs just £521 more than the less accessible equivalent—about one week’s bill for residential care. Do the Government accept that that shows an urgent need for higher access standards, and for more homes to be built to those standards?

Stephen Williams: I think the hon. Lady is referring to part M of the building regulations, which has a baseline requirement for accessibility. The housing standards review proposes to allow local authorities to adopt higher standards where they judge that to be applicable. Demography obviously varies between authorities, and Bolton will be quite different from Christchurch. I am a localist and believe that that is the right way forward.

Martin Vickers: Residents in North East Lincolnshire would welcome a local plan with high accessibility standards—indeed, they would welcome any local plan, but the Labour-controlled council will not produce one until 2017. In the meantime, villages are having many unnecessary planning applications. What advice can the Minister offer my local residents?

Stephen Williams: The Government strongly exhort all local authorities to have an up-to-date local plan in place, and 80% of authorities now have a published plan and 62% an adopted plan. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman’s authority in Lincolnshire is not following suit.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Habinteg, Age UK, Aspire, Care and Repair, Disability Rights UK, Leonard Cheshire Disability and Mencap all supported Labour’s push to amend the Infrastructure Bill to ensure high standards of accessibility in new housing. Why did the Government oppose those efforts?

Stephen Williams: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). Every local authority is different and demography varies from area to area. Part M of the building regulations has a baseline requirement for accessibility to be built into new homes, and the housing standards review provides two upper tiers—equivalent to the lifetime homes standard—for local authorities to adopt. On top of that there is also a wheelchair housing standard for accommodation that caters for particular specialist needs.

Translation Costs

Dominic Raab: What steps he is taking to reduce translation costs in the delivery of local services.

Eric Pickles: My Department has issued crystal clear guidance to councils that they should cease translating into foreign languages. Translation is a
	waste of taxpayers’ money and encourages segregation and division. Promoting English is the best way to ensure integration.

Dominic Raab: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and welcome the progress made by his Department. Does he agree that the enormous translation costs for public services that grew up under the previous Government were not just a huge waste of taxpayers’ money, but sent a message that if someone moves here from abroad, they do not need to speak English or to integrate, and that has proved a major policy mistake?

Eric Pickles: Yes; the cost worked out at something like £140 million a year. It is not good enough to say, “Don’t translate”; we must make a real effort to ensure that people can speak English. That is why my Department has invested £6 million in six programmes to deliver courses for more than 24,000 adults with the lowest levels of English. Those people are the most isolated because they are unable to speak English. The courses have been targeted principally towards Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Somali women.

Chi Onwurah: I recently met the profoundly deaf communities in my constituency through Deaflink, and they highlighted how isolated they felt because of the lack of British sign language translation services available when accessing services. What will the Secretary of State do to support them?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point: sign languages in English should be available. I shall look into the matter very carefully and, because she has made a reasonable point, respond to her.

Private Rented Sector

Steve Reed: What progress his Department has made in promoting longer-term tenancies in the private rented sector.

Mike Gapes: What progress his Department has made in promoting longer-term tenancies in the private rented sector.

Karl Turner: What progress his Department has made in promoting longer-term tenancies in the private rented sector.

Brandon Lewis: We are progressing longer tenancies by promoting a model tenancy agreement with bodies representing landlords, tenants, letting agents, mortgage lenders and local authorities. Recent figures show that tenancy lengths have increased to an average of just under four years.

Steve Reed: A survey conducted in Croydon North showed some letting agents charging registration fees as high as £500, and hundreds more in finder’s fees and for simply handling the deposit. Of course, short tenancies
	make this rip-off even worse. Why are the Government not standing up for hard-pressed renters against rip-off letting agents?

Brandon Lewis: Actually, we are. The new provisions in the Consumer Rights Bill will require all letting agents to publish their full tariff of fees, both on their websites and prominently in their offices, regardless of whether they are a member of a protection scheme and of which redress scheme they have signed. This will protect tenants from the small minority of agents who charge unreasonable hidden fees and will raise awareness of safe agents and the right of redress.

Mike Gapes: Nine million people, including 1 million families with children, are in private rented accommodation, which, as thousands in my constituency know, leads to uncertainty and fear about people’s long-term future and stability. When will this Conservative Government and their Lib Dem accomplices take the issue seriously? Will they do something now, rather than engage in spurious consultations that take months and years?

Brandon Lewis: I am not sure exactly what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do. As I said, we have published a model tenancy agreement to encourage longer tenancies. It is worth noting that, according to Savills, a majority of people, particularly younger people, do not want longer tenancies and that 81% of private renters who have moved in the last three years ended their last tenancy because they wished to move, predominantly for work reasons.

Karl Turner: Thousands of families in Hull are subjected to unfair, unsecured tenancies. Why can the Government not accept Labour’s plan for three-year secure tenancy agreements? What is wrong with it?

Brandon Lewis: Given that average tenancies have increased to almost four years, I think that we have already achieved what we needed to achieve and that the hon. Gentleman should be saying, “Well done!”

Mark Prisk: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	Despite what we have just heard, the evidence from abroad is that the best way to create a more professional private rented sector is actively to encourage pension funds and the long-term institutions to invest for the long term. Given that, may I strongly encourage the Minister to ensure that all our policies—taxation and otherwise—now encourage that long-term investment, not short-term capital gains?

Brandon Lewis: As the House will know, my hon. Friend has a wealth of experience in this matter, and he is absolutely right. We have worked hard to expand the private rented sector, and we want it to grow further and not be threatened by the risk of Labour’s rent control. That is why we have £10 billion of housing guarantee schemes and have allowed the industry to unlock borrowing at the lowest rate in its history. We also recently announced a further £3.5 billion package to promote long-term institutional investment, which holds prices well and brings better and well-managed properties into the market.

Duncan Hames: I was delighted that the Minister supported the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) on preventing retaliatory evictions. Given that the Bill can no longer proceed, will he support the amendments tabled in the House of Lords by my colleague Baroness Bakewell and others to introduce these measures into the Deregulation Bill?

Brandon Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is in fact a Government amendment that is being taken through the Lords. The principle of ensuring that retaliatory evictions cannot happen is one that we would all wholeheartedly support.

Bob Neill: Does my hon. Friend agree that evidence from abroad also shows that the last way to get the long-term investment that the private sector needs is through the distorting effect of rent controls, which damaged the quality of the private rental sector in places such as New York when they were tried there?

Brandon Lewis: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. History—both in this country and in a number of countries overseas—has shown us that all rent controls do is put prices up for tenants and reduce supply, which is the opposite of what we want in this country. We want a good, thriving and growing rental sector.

John Healey: In relation to the private rented sector and all other housing, the English housing survey
	“is used extensively across government and beyond and is a public good of national importance.”
	Those are not my words but those of the national statistician in reaction to the Minister’s plans to stop the survey next year and then do it only every other year subsequently. In the light of the national statistician’s concerns in urging a rethink, will the Minister confirm that he will take that advice and not scrap next year’s survey?

Brandon Lewis: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we still have to deal with the record deficit and debt left by the last Labour Government, so we have to be sensible with public sector money, and look to see how we can do things more efficiently and more effectively. We are in consultation at the moment, and I shall make my response to the House when the consultation ends.

Anne McIntosh: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on what the Government have achieved through the model agreement? There will be appeals, so will he say a little more about how the approved redress scheme is coping with those appeals?

Brandon Lewis: No issues have been reported at this time, but if my hon. Friend has any particular concerns, I would be happy to meet her and any concerned residents.

Emma Reynolds: The Minister keeps peddling the myth, but we are not proposing rent controls. The Government have taken
	no meaningful action to promote longer-term tenancies. Both the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), and the current housing Minister told us last year that rent levels were falling, with the Under-Secretary saying that rents were falling even in London. But now the Office for National Statistics has confirmed what everybody else knew all along—that rents are rising faster than wages and rising in real terms. Will the Minister now admit that he was wrong and that millions of private renters are facing insecurity and rising rents?

Brandon Lewis: I am afraid to say to the hon. Lady that real-term rents have been lower than the changes in inflation, so rent costs have fallen in real terms. We need to continue to see supply come through and get that institutional investment that was mentioned a few minutes ago so that we continue to see good-quality housing available at good prices.

Green-belt Land

Chris Skidmore: What steps his Department has taken to protect green-belt land from inappropriate development.

Brandon Lewis: The Government have safeguarded national green-belt protection in contrast to Labour’s top-down strategies of the past that wanted to concrete over it. In October last year, we published new planning guidance, which reaffirmed green-belt protection, and we have been consulting on changes to Traveller policy which, if taken forward, will further strengthen green-belt protection.

Chris Skidmore: Over the past five years, the Kingswood green belt has been protected. Now, hundreds of local people have signed a petition against a proposed right to grow set out in the Opposition’s Lyons review that would allow Bristol to expand at the expense of our local green belt and local communities. Does the Minister agree that we need to continue to protect the Kingswood green belt against this dangerous right to grow policy?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. When I visited him not too long ago, he showed me Labour plans for places to have the ability to grow outwards. The review says that some places illustrate these issues to a greater or lesser extent, and that
	“not all green belt land is of high environmental or amenity value”.
	I suspect my hon. Friend’s residents would disagree with that. I know he has campaigned hard on this issue. It is vital to ensure that we continue these strong green-belt protections. Ultimately, these matters must be locally decided by local people for their local area.

Clive Betts: The Minister will be aware that paragraphs 17 and 111 of the national planning policy framework contain a commitment to “brownfield first”. When the Select Committee did its recent inquiry into the operation of the NPPF, it received more complaints about one issue than any other—concerns about inappropriate speculative applications, not just in the green belt but in green fields in general. Will he agree to look very carefully at the
	Select Committee’s recommendations to speed up the process of local plan adoption and to ensure that those local plans have a higher percentage of brownfield within them? There is real concern about this issue on both sides of the Chamber.

Brandon Lewis: The short answer is yes. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point: it is important to protect both green-belt and greenfield land. Some interesting cases have arisen, particularly one in the last couple of weeks, in which green-wedge land was protected by inspectors. However, it is also important for local authorities to deliver local plans, and it would be even better to see some more neighbourhood plans.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Following the question from my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), may I ask whether my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that 70% of Bath and North East Somerset is green belt? It is some of the most beautiful countryside in the world, and allowing Bristol to spill over into it would essentially mean the recreation of that most unloved county of Avon. The Government’s commitment to preserving the green belt is therefore of crucial importance.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend has lobbied me on this issue, along with colleagues in the area. There is indeed some beautiful scenery there, and the green belt is indeed important. The local authority, working with local people, has the right to make decisions that will protect its green belt, as is specified in the national planning policy framework.

Ronnie Campbell: In Cramlington, in my constituency, an urban sprawl of housing has developed over the years since it became a new town. There is a small green patch there, but it is currently the subject of an application for planning permission to build more housing. Should not the townships that were built during the 1960s have a bit of green space in the middle?

Brandon Lewis: We all like to keep our green spaces, and the NPPF is very clear about the need to protect green belt, but, ultimately, the decision should be made locally. It is for the local authority to outline its local plan, but I urge the community in the area to consider proceeding with a local neighbourhood plan, in order to give themselves absolute local control and, if they want it, local protection.

Mike Thornton: In my constituency, Eastleigh borough council is working hard to meet the desperate need for more housing while also protecting the precious green gaps between our towns and villages. Are the Secretary of State and the Minister aware that the inspectorate has overruled the borough council’s local plan, which was based on all the evidence available, while refusing to give an adequate explanation of its reasons for insisting on the building of thousands more houses than the evidence has shown to be necessary?

Brandon Lewis: Obviously I cannot comment on a particular local plan, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to contact me and provide some of the details. The inspectors would generally look at the evidence, and I think it
	unlikely that they would make a specific comment about numbers. It is more probable that they challenged the local authority’s evidence. It is important for the authority to put together a strong evidence base to back up what it wants to do.

Refuse Collections

Jennifer Willott: What discussions he has had with local authorities on the frequency of the collection of black bins.

Kris Hopkins: DCLG Ministers often discuss the frequency of waste collection with local authorities, and our £250 million weekly collection support scheme has helped more than 80 councils to provide weekly collections. About 40 innovative recycling reward schemes are making life easier for 6 million households.

Jennifer Willott: I am sure the Minister is aware that Labour-run Cardiff council is currently consulting on the possibility of collecting black bins and bags just once a month. Of all people, Jeremy Clarkson has said:
	“There will be so much litter in the streets that rats and plague are sure to follow.”
	Notwithstanding the hyperbole, does the Minister share my concern that monthly collections will cause Cardiff to become dirty and full of rubbish, with a growing problem of fly-tipping, rats and seagulls?

Kris Hopkins: Those sound like more wise words from Jeremy Clarkson.
	Last year the council was presented with a significant petition against the proposal. Only 27% of residents believe that they can manage with a monthly rubbish collection. The hon. Lady is right: we have poor Labour leadership in Wales nationally, and we clearly have very poor Labour leadership locally in Cardiff.

David Nuttall: What advice would my hon. Friend give residents in Bury, where, without any consultation and despite overwhelming opposition, the Labour-run council has already reduced the frequency of the black bin collection not from weekly to fortnightly, but from fortnightly to three-weekly?

Kris Hopkins: My clear advice would be to vote Conservative in the forthcoming elections.

First-time Buyers

Jeremy Lefroy: What steps his Department has taken to help first-time buyers.

Brandon Lewis: We have already helped over 58,000 first-time buyers to purchase a home with as little as 5% deposit through Help to Buy. We are also consulting on the starter homes scheme. Starter homes will be available for 100,000 first-time buyers under 40 years of age, at a minimum of 20% below open market value.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank the Minister for that important answer. Stafford and Rural Homes in my constituency is investing in many high-quality, well-designed new homes for social rent. What steps is he taking to ensure that the proposed new starter homes are of equally high quality and good design?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have said at a number of points that it is important that, in building the quantity of homes we want, we ensure that the quality of build and design is there, too, so that communities can be proud of the homes that are being built. That is why I brought together a design panel of various organisations, which is looking at that work to ensure that we are using the best-quality design and build.

Meg Hillier: One way that the Minister can help first-time buyers in my constituency is to tackle high rents and insecurity in the private rented sector. Increasingly, there are reports of people who are not couples being forced to share a bedroom because they cannot afford the high rents in London, yet the Minister is being complacent. Is it not time that the Government acted?

Brandon Lewis: I think that, in asking for rent controls again, the hon. Lady may have just contradicted her colleague, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). We have introduced the rent to buy scheme, which was announced towards the end of last year, to enable people who are renting and want to own a home to have another option to do that. I also encourage the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) to support our starter homes programme, which will make 100,000 extra homes available at a 20% discount.

Mr Speaker: I was going to call Mr Love, but he is not standing, so I won’t. But if he does, I might.

Andrew Love: I did not think that you would call two Opposition Members in a row, Mr Speaker.
	The level of home ownership has fallen to its lowest level for 30 years. Will the Government now admit that their failure to build homes is pricing home ownership out of the reach of ordinary families?

Brandon Lewis: I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that in 2010 we inherited the lowest level of building since 1923. We have been rebuilding that market, which is now back at the 2007 level. We have started building affordable homes at the fastest rate in 20 years. The latest figures we have show that, in 2013, we had the highest level of first-time buyers in the market—almost 230,000—for many years.

Housing Completions and Demand

Heidi Alexander: What comparative assessment he has made of the number of housing completions and demand for housing since 2010.

Stephen Williams: Since autumn 2009, 700,000 more homes have been created across England. The Government’s action to get Britain building again has played a vital role in supporting the growth of housing across the country, which has led to a sustained economic recovery.

Heidi Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but he will be aware that demand for genuinely affordable homes massively outstrips supply. In the light of that, how does he justify the Government’s latest policy wheeze, which allows developers to offset vacant buildings on a site against the requirement to provide affordable housing? Is that not another example of his Government watering down the rules for private developers, at the expense of those on the housing waiting list?

Stephen Williams: I am actually quite proud of the Government’s record on affordable homes. In the 2011-15 spending review period, we will have put £19.5 billion of public and private money into the affordable homes programme, delivering 170,000 new affordable homes by March this year, the biggest programme of house building for about 20 years. As for the policy that the hon. Lady referred to, it has been in place for a month. We will have to review its effect and no doubt we will respond accordingly.

Jeremy Corbyn: The policy of permitted development has been in operation for much longer. Will the Minister kindly look into that? Developers are able to convert office or industrial premises into residential housing with no social obligation whatsoever. In constituencies such as mine in central London, where there is a massive housing waiting list, that is not helping the situation; it is making it worse and forcing more families to leave the borough.

Stephen Williams: Introducing flexibilities into the planning system has played an important part in getting new homes in some places where there have been redundant office blocks. I know that there is a particular issue in London, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have just consulted on those proposals and we will respond shortly.

Crowdfunding

Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to encourage local communities to use crowdfunding for social and community enterprises.

Stephen Williams: The Government see great potential in the use of crowdfunding as a means of engaging communities and providing alternative access to finance for community-led enterprises. My Department established the community shares unit in October 2012, with £640,000 of funding. Since then, communities have raised over £50 million from 141 share offer launches.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that, because there is such an unfair funding formula, councils such as Kirklees have been cut to the bone and many of the services we have grown to expect to be provided by the council will now have to be provided in other ways? Will he do even more to help the social enterprise sector to provide those services that many of us think should still be delivered by local councils?

Stephen Williams: The hon. Gentleman and I have agreed on many things over the years, and I share his enthusiasm for social enterprise. I think it should be a growing part of the economy. I also share his enthusiasm for crowdfunding. I held a round-table in the Department to look at how we can encourage more communities to use crowdfunding, and I think it has enormous potential, in particular to replace the system whereby the Department or local authorities give grants for community groups but do not require them to raise money for themselves. That is something I am trying to alter, and I think it will lead to real community empowerment.

Brownfield Sites (Pendle)

Andrew Stephenson: What steps he has taken to encourage the development of brownfield sites in Pendle.

Brandon Lewis: We are working with the Lancashire local enterprise partnership and Pendle council to support development of the iconic Brierfield mill site. We have provided £2.5 million to help bring over 600 empty properties back into use in Pendle. Brownfield sites in the Burnley-Pendle corridor have also been shortlisted for housing zone status.

Andrew Stephenson: I welcome the news that east Lancashire has been shortlisted as a possible housing brownfield zone. However, more needs to be done to unlock previously developed sites and take pressure off greenfield areas like the Rough and the Meadows in Colne, which are currently subject to planning applications. What more reassurance can the Minister give me that the Government will support councils like Pendle to prioritise brownfield?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he has spoken to me extensively about the excellent work going on in Pendle to make sure that brownfield sites are being developed, and I am pleased that that is part of the housing zone programme. We are in the process of encouraging further development on brownfield land. We want to develop 200,000 new homes by 2020 on brownfield land, and just last week we launched a £4.4 million incentive fund to support the preparation of local development orders on brownfield sites.

Andrew Gwynne: rose—

Mr Speaker: In the absence of a milometer I cannot say with any accuracy how close the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is to Pendle, but his question needs to be.

Andrew Gwynne: Absolutely, Mr Speaker. Last year the planning Minister told me that green-belt protection throughout the ancient county of Lancashire, which
	incorporates my constituency as well as Pendle, meant that development would not be permitted unless there was extensive consultation with the local population through an amendment to the development plan, and only then in exceptional circumstances. What would the Minister’s view be of a local authority that did not consult extensively with the local community and then approved a development in the green belt, as Liberal Democrat-controlled Stockport council has now done?

Brandon Lewis: I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you will excuse me for saying “Nicely done” to the hon. Gentleman for keeping that question in order.
	The hon. Gentleman is right: rearranging, reorganising or relooking at green belt within a local plan needs to be done in full consultation with people. The local authority needs to go through that, and it has to go through an independent examination with an inspector, but, obviously, with regard to individual planning applications, ultimately we believe in localism. I believe it is right for local people, through their local authorities, to have that power, through democracy, to make local decisions. It is very much a matter for the local authority.

Neighbourhood Planning and Community Rights

Stuart Andrew: What steps his Department is taking to support local communities with neighbourhood planning and community rights.

Stephen Williams: Since April 2012, we have provided £48.5 million to help communities understand and access community rights and associated initiatives. This has funded a helpline, online tools and resources, and specialist support and grants. From next year we are investing a further £32 million to help communities take up the rights.

Stuart Andrew: Neighbourhood forums in my constituency are engaging with the planning process and developing considered and well-researched neighbourhood plans, but their complaint is that they are not statutory consultees on planning applications that affect their area. Will the Department look at this?

Stephen Williams: Our guidance is clear. Where there is an emerging neighbourhood plan and the local authority—Leeds in the hon. Gentleman’s case—does not have a local plan, it should take account of the emerging issues in the neighbourhood plan in designated areas, such as Aireborough in his constituency.

Phil Wilson: Developers Gladman have won, on appeal, the right to build 250 houses on a greenfield site at Middleton St George in my constituency, at a time when the local residents are developing a neighbourhood plan. The development is against the wishes of local people and Darlington borough council. Local people feel that their views are being ignored and have called into question the Department’s commitment to localism. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the consequences of the housing development and Middleton St George’s neighbourhood plan?

Stephen Williams: I obviously will not comment on the individual application, but both the planning Minister and I often meet neighbourhood planning groups that are frustrated by the behaviour of some housing companies where there is an emerging neighbourhood plan. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss his issues too.

David Heath: Does my hon. Friend recognise that one of the difficulties in persuading local communities to engage with neighbourhood planning is the huge amount of effort invested in the past in producing parish plans and village design statements that were then completely ignored by both local planners and the planning inspectorate? Will he reassure me that neighbourhood planning now really means something?

Stephen Williams: I visit many of the neighbourhood plans around the country, and I actually think that they have been an excellent innovation by the Government. They get people involved in planning at a neighbourhood plan level, and they now have weight within the planning system, which is the difference from before. The plans are also endorsed by a referendum of the public, which shows real enthusiasm for involvement in shaping their communities.

Firefighters’ Pensions

Grahame Morris: What progress his Department has made on resolving the dispute over firefighters’ pensions.

Penny Mordaunt: Firefighter pension regulations were fully debated in the House, and come into force on 1 April. Firefighters will continue to receive one of the best pensions in the public sector and we have added statutory fitness protections. These matters are now settled, and the current dispute should end.

Grahame Morris: On 15 December, the fire Minister gave hon. Members assurances that firefighters who failed a fitness test would receive unreduced pensions, and that was confirmed by the Secretary of State the following day. Subsequently, fire authorities, in response to a survey by the Fire Brigades Union, have said that they cannot provide a guarantee of an unreduced pension. Can the Minister confirm that the guarantee is 100%, or is it not a guarantee when it is given by a Tory Minister?

Penny Mordaunt: The national service framework has been changed and it came into effect on 12 January—that was the fitness protections. Fire and rescue authorities have to follow the national service framework: it is not an option. We have been very clear that if a firefighter loses fitness through no fault of their own, they should get an alternative role or a full unreduced pension. These are new protections, despite the fact that firefighters have been required to work to 60 since 2006.

John Hemming: I was one of the Members who backed the Government given the assurances from the Minister, but the documentation
	from the employers indicates something else. What clarification can she give about what the employers are saying?

Penny Mordaunt: Clearly, we can change the law. If fire and rescue authorities decide that they will not follow the law, we will spot that because we have also undertaken to audit this process and their adoption of new fitness principles. The Secretary of State also has powers to intervene. I have no indication that fire and rescue authorities will not adhere to the national service framework. If hon. Members know differently, they should let me know.

Lyn Brown: On 15 December, the Minister said that if someone fails a fitness test
	“through no fault of their own”—
	and they do not qualify for an ill-health retirement, they will get
	“an alternative role or an unreduced pension.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1153.]
	The Minister further confirmed that that would be put on a statutory footing in the national framework. Will she confirm that the national framework does not guarantee a full pension or redeployed role? It merely requests fire authorities to consider options for redeployment or a full pension. It is a sham guarantee—it is no guarantee. How does the Minister square what she told the House with the ministerial code?

Penny Mordaunt: This is about protecting the firefighters whom the hon. Lady—who was in the Department when the changes were made in 2006—is asking to work until the age of 60. This is an improvement on the previous situation. There are two reasons why we have introduced the new measures: first, those older workers should have those protections; secondly, we recognise that the fear of being in that situation may have an impact on recruitment and retention. This scaremongering by the Opposition is shameful, and I would ask them to put the well-being of firefighters ahead of pandering to the militant wing of the Fire Brigades Union.

Topical Questions

Barry Gardiner: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. Will the Minister confirm that—

Mr Speaker: Order. It will not be long before we hear the hon. Gentleman’s dulcet tones. We can hold on just a moment. Let us hear Secretary Pickles, adorned in his waistcoat, first.

Eric Pickles: I can hardly wait, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission published its recommendations to ensure that the memory of the holocaust is preserved. The Government will commit £50 million to the creation of the national memorial, the learning centre and the endowment fund. My Department will sponsor the new Holocaust Memorial Foundation, which will take forward those recommendations. Its first task will be to undertake an urgent programme to record and preserve the testimony of British holocaust survivors and liberators. It is our
	collective responsibility to educate future generations about the horrors of the holocaust and never to forget why we need to challenge and combat the forces of hate.

Barry Gardiner: May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks on the holocaust memorial, which is fundamentally important? Will he confirm that, in 2015-16, Brent’s core funding will be cut by 14% and its revenue support grant by 28%? Will he also confirm that the reason why his Department curiously refers to Brent’s spending power is that it includes £23 million of money that Brent council does not receive and has no power over, and that doing so gives him the singular advantage of allowing him falsely to claim that Brent is being cut by only 1.8%?

Eric Pickles: We moved over to looking at the spending power of authorities at the urging of the Local Government Association, the Labour party and the local government unit. They considered it to be a fairer way of measuring, and I think that they were right. It is fairer, because it is frankly pointless just to measure the amount of money coming from the Government. It is better to get a rounded position. That is why we have been able to ensure that services have been protected, that the level of satisfaction with local government has never been higher, and that reserves have never been higher.

Andrew Stephenson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) have both kindly visited the largest redundant mill complex in Lancashire, Brierfield mill in my constituency. Following the fantastic news of Government funding for the project in last week’s growth deal, will Ministers commit themselves to continuing to work with Pendle borough council and myself to move forward this massive regeneration project?

Penny Mordaunt: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I congratulate him on all he has done to be champion for his local area. I will be up there next week talking to his local enterprise partnership about how we can take things forward.

Hilary Benn: I want to return to the very serious matter of what the House was told in December about firefighters’ pensions. As we have just heard, firefighters are clear that the Minister gave them a guarantee that if they could not meet the fitness standard and could not be found another job, they would go on an unreduced pension. The Secretary of State—my question is to him—told the Communities and Local Government Select Committee the following day that if firefighters
	“cannot be redeployed, the effect of yesterday’s decision is that they will get a full pension.”
	However, the statutory instrument makes it clear that the fire and rescue authorities only have to “have regard” to the guidance in carrying out their duties. If that is the case, can the Secretary of State please explain how on earth that constitutes a guarantee?

Penny Mordaunt: The national service framework is something that is within our gift. We have changed it and put the principles within it on a statutory footing. They are not optional. There is no wriggle room for fire and rescue authorities. Clearly, fire and rescue authorities are responsible for their own policies locally, but I have no indication that they will deviate from the national service framework. If they do so, and we find that they are doing so, we will act. The Secretary of State has powers in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to do that. I say to Opposition Members that this is a vast improvement on what they gave firefighters. It is a step in the right direction to protect older workers. If, as the work of the fitness group progresses, there are further things that we can do once good practice is agreed upon, we will of course consider them. This is doing firefighters a grave disservice and it is undermining confidence in the fact that all firefighters—men and women—can enjoy a full career in the service.

Hilary Benn: I note that the Secretary of State did not want to respond in respect of his own words. But I say to the hon. Lady that the reason there is no confidence is that she and the Secretary of State have failed to give effect to the promise that they made. If she is looking for proof of that, may I quote to her what the London Fire Brigade said in correspondence to the Fire Brigades Union? She says that she has seen no evidence so she should really keep up. The FBU had written to the London Fire Brigade after the debate in December and asked whether there would be a guarantee. The London Fire Brigade said that it had taken legal advice, which
	“confirms the position previously notified to DCLG by the Authority, most recently on 9 December 2014, that if DCLG wished to offer such a guarantee then it would need to change the regulations to enable that to happen.”
	It then went on to say that
	“the Authority is unable to give any guarantee.”
	Firefighters are understandably angry because it turns out that the guarantee that they were promised in December on the basis of that was not a guarantee. Will the Minister do what she promised and apologise?

Penny Mordaunt: I will not apologise for improving the situation of firefighters. Firefighters had been asked to work until 60 without any protections. We have introduced those protections. I also have to say that I have no trouble keeping up with what the FBU wishes to tell us. Not only do I have its letters, but I have letters also from the Secretary of State. Those letters are not only in the FBU’s font but have even managed to get his job description wrong.

Duncan Hames: One fire authority responding to queries from firefighters about how it was going to honour the Minister’s commitment wrote to them and said:
	“We are advised that the addendum to the National Framework…continues to provide discretion over the award of an unreduced pension…We are further advised that such discretion cannot be fettered, and that to provide the ‘guarantee’ you are seeking would be unlawful.”
	Will the Minister begin the audit to which she has committed and ensure that fire authorities honour the commitment that she has made?

Penny Mordaunt: Of course, if a firefighter loses fitness through their own fault—by neglecting to go to the gym, to train and to keep up to date with the requirements placed on them—fire authorities have the discretion not to award a pension, which is quite right. Where that is not the case, the authorities must award a pension. The audit will take place. There is work going on at the moment with the fitness group that was set up, and I am pleased to update the House that women in the fire service now have a permanent seat on that fitness group. The group will come up with good practice that I hope all fire authorities will follow.

Pat Glass: Durham is ranked the fifth most deprived area in the country on the Government’s own index and is recognised as having much higher need than other wealthier areas. If we are all in this together, will the Minister explain why Durham unitary authority has lost £180 spending power for every man, woman and child in Durham, while Wokingham authority, one of the wealthiest areas in the country, has seen a gain in its spending power for every man, woman and child?

Kris Hopkins: As I said earlier, the most deprived areas receive 40% more money than the least deprived areas. It is important for local authorities and local leaders to understand that the grant is not the only course for delivering services. They should also consider building their local economy, building houses and receiving the new homes bonus, which I understand that the Labour party will scrap. That is the route that delivers quality services. It should be noted that, despite all the challenges that local authorities have faced, every authority has managed to balance its books and public perception of local authorities has remained positive.

Andrew Bridgen: What steps is the Department taking to support independent local newspapers such as the Coalville Times in my constituency?

Kris Hopkins: We have given clear guidance on our expectations regarding council-sponsored newspapers. At a time when every authority faces serious challenges in delivering core services to vulnerable people, we should not be wasting money on propaganda sheets, and our guidance makes sure that local authorities are aware of that. I note that my hon. Friend’s local council has taken significant measures to reduce the amount of money it spends on council newspapers.

Yasmin Qureshi: Why does the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) think that the fire authorities are saying that this is not a guarantee?

Penny Mordaunt: The fire authorities cannot deviate from the national service framework unless they choose to break the law. The measure will not come into effect until 2022 and we have undertaken to carry out a full audit in three years’ time of how they are adopting the fitness principles. If we find that fire authorities are not
	following and honouring those principles, we have powers to intervene. I do not understand why the issue is causing difficulty for the hon. Lady.

Robert Halfon: Harlow has had more than 100 illegal Traveller encampments over the past 15 months, yet the chief constable of Essex says that he does not have the power to remove them and cites human rights legislation. Will my hon. Friend the Minister please have urgent discussions with the chief constable, set out what the powers are and tell them to stop hiding behind Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines?

Brandon Lewis: I know that my hon. Friend has fought hard for his residents in Harlow and I have met him, the police and crime commissioner and Harlow council. The council and the local police should be using their powers to make sure that policy, the green belt and the good residents of Harlow are protected in the way my hon. Friend has fought so hard to do.

Nick Raynsford: May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? This time last year, the Department published a consultation paper on the private rented sector that, among other items, proposed that the installation of working smoke alarms be mandatory. Since then, Ministers have repeatedly failed to meet their own—frequently deferred—deadlines for saying when the consultation will be published. Why are they dragging their feet on such a simple and popular measure that will save lives?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about how important working smoke alarms and CO2 detectors can be in saving lives. We will respond to the consultation in due course.

Angela Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discuss with his Cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Health the rules of ordinary residence for people in care homes? The London borough of Havering picks up financial responsibility for a large number of self-funding residents who come from out-borough. Would it not be fairer if the rule of ordinary residence relied on the address where that person last lived?

Eric Pickles: I am aware of that problem, which I think is most acute in my hon. Friend’s constituency. As we move into April, the better care fund—which is a mechanism not just for funding, but for better co-ordination—should help. Residence should be taken into consideration as a whole and a proper care package should be worked out individually for each person. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.

Andrew McDonald: Does the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) not accept that for a promise and guarantee made to this House in December to be in tatters by January does nothing to help good industrial
	relations? Is not the general secretary of the FBU entirely right to say that firefighters have been utterly cheated?

Penny Mordaunt: The fitness principles came into effect on 12 January, and no amount of spin from Opposition Members can undo that. Firefighters will have a guarantee: if they are working beyond the age of 55 and lose fitness through no fault of their own they will get an alternative role or, if none is available, an unreduced pension. If fire authorities do not do that, the Secretary of State has powers to intervene.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I think we will finish with a dose of Davies. I call Mr Philip Davies.

Philip Davies: I have asked Bradford council to supply details of the amount of money it raises in council tax from each ward across the Bradford
	district. I would have thought that would have been readily available information for any local authority, but Bradford council keeps refusing to publish it, claiming that it does not even have it. We all know why: the council does not want to show how much is contributed in council tax from the Shipley constituency and how little goes back to that constituency. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State whether he will make it a statutory duty for local authorities to publish details of how much council tax they receive from each ward in their area?

Kris Hopkins: As a former leader on the front benches of Bradford council, I asked the same question and I was given that information. But of course that was under a Conservative-led administration, which wanted to be transparent and open about the amount of money that was raised. Bradford council has nothing to hide from publishing these figures and letting people who make a significant contribution to the economy of the district know where their money is raised and spent.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Luciana Berger: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of child and adolescent mental health in-patient beds, and on child and adolescent mental health services more generally.

Norman Lamb: Since April 2013, NHS England has been responsible for commissioning in-patient child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS—often referred to as tier 4 CAMHS. In 2014, NHS England reviewed in-patient tier 4 CAMHS and found that the number of NHS-funded beds had increased from 844 in 1999 to 1,128 in 2006. That has now risen to more than 1,400 beds, the highest this has ever been. These data are now being collected nationally for the first time, but despite the overall increase, NHS England also found relative shortages in the south-west and areas such as Yorkshire and Humber.
	In response, the Government provided £7 million of additional funding, allowing NHS England to provide 50 additional CAMHS specialised tier 4 beds for young patients in the areas with the least provision—46 of these beds have now opened. NHS England has also introduced new processes for referring to and discharging from services, to make better use of existing capacity. A key objective of these actions is to help prevent children and young people from being referred for treatment long distances from home, except in the most specialised cases.
	National availability of in-patient CAMHS beds is reviewed each week by NHS England specialised area commissioning teams and the national lead for commissioning, identifying any issues and taking proactive steps to address them. On 30 January, it emerged that the number of general CAMHS beds available was lower than in recent weeks. In response, NHS England implemented contingency plans, including contacting existing CAMHS providers to seek additional capacity and increasing the use of intensive home support packages to allow children and young people to be treated at home or on a non-specialised ward. NHS England has also contacted mental health providers to alert them to the immediate capacity issues in CAMHS and establish what capacity existed in adult in-patient and community services to take cases on a temporary basis, should that option be required.
	The Government are committed to improving CAMHS as part of our commitment to achieving parity of esteem between mental and physical health—this is not just for in-patient services, but for services in the community, and for services that seek to intervene early and prevent problems arising. That, ultimately, is where the focus must be to ensure that, as far as possible, we spot issues early and prevent them from worsening, reducing the need for in-patient treatment.
	In August 2014, the Department of Health set up the child and adolescent mental health and well-being taskforce. The taskforce brings together a range of experts from across health, social care and education. It will consider how we can provide more joined-up and accessible
	services built around the needs of children, young people and their families. A Government report on the taskforce’s findings will be published in the spring.
	The Government have also invested £54 million in the children and young people’s improving access to psychological therapies programme and will invest £150 million over the next five years in improving services for those with eating disorders.

Luciana Berger: All over England, our child and adolescent mental health services are increasingly under pressure. Despite the best efforts of NHS staff, the system is now in crisis. Children are being sent hundreds of miles for treatment or detained in police cells because there is nowhere else for them to go. We are also hearing of young people getting no treatment at all. I was appalled to see the copy of the e-mail that NHS England commissioners sent on Friday night, warning mental health trusts of a national shortage of in-patient beds for children. It was almost one year ago that the chief executive of YoungMinds said that the increase in the number of children placed on adult wards was entirely predictable following cuts to mental health services. Why did the Minister not act on that warning and do something to prevent it from happening?
	The e-mail from NHS England said that the shortage would make it likely that 16 to 18-year-olds would need to be admitted to adult wards. Senior inspectors at the Care Quality Commission say that under-18s should not be put on adult wards, so why is NHS England issuing guidance that contravenes that advice? Adult mental health wards are no place for young people, but how can the Minister be sure that even in emergencies adult wards can accommodate children and teenagers? Adult mental health wards are operating at well over their recommended capacity, and today the Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned that the lack of acute beds available to mental health patients has left the system at breaking point. If adult mental health wards are full, where will these children go? What assessment was used to determine how many beds were needed? Clearly, it is not working. Does the Minister now plan to reassess the situation?
	Why are so many of our children and young people needing in-patient mental health care in the first place? Could it have anything to do with the £50 million of cuts to child and adolescent mental health services? The Minister talked about early intervention, but we have seen cuts to early intervention in psychosis services, cuts to crisis services in the community, and the decimation of the early intervention grant, putting a lot of pressure on in-patient services. Could the problem be the fragmentation of commissioning we have seen across the health service since the Government’s reorganisation of the NHS?
	The Government have paid lip service to parity of esteem and brought cuts and crisis in reality. Our children deserve better, and that is why Labour is committed to working to reverse the damage done to child and adolescent mental health services by this Government and why we have pledged to end the scandal of the neglect of child mental health.

Norman Lamb: First, let me caution against sanctimony. This is not a new issue: under the previous Labour Government, children did at times end up in adult wards. That is highly undesirable—everyone recognises
	that—and we must do everything we can to prevent it, but please do not try to claim that this is an entirely new problem. It is not. The Government have significantly increased the number of beds available, so significantly more are available now than there were in the last decade. The hon. Lady says that she sees increasing numbers of children held in police cells, but let us have some honesty and accuracy in this debate. The number of children who end up in police cells is falling, not increasing. The crisis care concordat, published last February, set a commitment to end the practice of children going into police cells. Indeed, we intend to legislate to ban it, but the numbers are lower than they were so she should not suggest that it is a growing problem—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	She did suggest that.
	The hon. Lady asked about my acting on the warning. That is exactly what we did. NHS England carried out a review of clinical judgment on the capacity required to meet children’s needs. As a result, there was a proposal for an increase of 50 beds nationally, focusing on the areas of the country where there was a significant problem, and the Government provided £7 million of additional funding to ensure that those beds were opened. Forty-six beds have opened. There is a temporary problem in Woking, where beds that were available are no longer accepting new admissions. That is a CQC issue. One thing that we have been absolutely steadfast on is that if standards are not being met, we should not continue to admit children to those wards.
	The hon. Lady mentioned psychosis services, but this Government, for the first time ever, introduced a waiting time standard for early intervention in psychosis, which was widely welcomed by everyone in the mental health world. From this April, we start the process of introducing a standard. To start with, 50% of all youngsters who suffer a first episode of psychosis will be seen within two weeks and start their treatment within two weeks. That is an incredibly important advance.
	The hon. Lady lectures the Government on mental health services, but perhaps she will consider why the Labour Government left out mental health when they introduced access and waiting time standards for all other health services. That dictates where the money goes and means that mental health loses out. This Government are correcting that mistake.

Sarah Wollaston: I welcome the extra beds committed to south Devon. The Minister will know that one of the most frequent points raised with the Health Committee in our recent CAMHS inquiry was the complete absence of accurate prevalence data on children and adolescents’ mental health needs and the services required to meet them. He will know that the prevalence data collection that used to happen every five years was cancelled in 2004. The Committee warmly welcomed the commitment to restart that survey. Will he update the House on exactly when that survey will start, whether the funds have been identified, and whether the scope of the prevalence data collection has been identified?

Norman Lamb: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Unless we understand the prevalence of the problem, it is impossible to plan services effectively. I am delighted
	that we have secured the funding for an updated prevalence survey in 2015-16. It will be an expanded survey compared with the previous one. We want to cover as wide an age range as possible, to cover early years. That will give us the data, information and evidence we need, but I would then want us to do regular repeats to ensure that we maintain an understanding of prevalence.

Alan Johnson: The excellent in-patient facility in Hull and East Yorkshire closed under this Government in 2013 with no consultation whatever. Despite an excellent report by the Health Committee, despite criticism by the CQC and despite NHS England identifying a problem, we have waited two years. Does the Minister believe that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 has made him powerless to act in such cases? If not, why does he not do something?

Norman Lamb: Ultimately, it has to be down to clinical decisions. Indeed, the whole thrust of policy, which was very much started under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government and during the period that he was Secretary of State for Health, is to devolve decision making about the make-up of services to local areas. That approach has been maintained. Ultimately, he would probably agree that such issues cannot all be determined in a Whitehall office.
	None the less, the right hon. Gentleman raises serious concerns. I have tried to engage with him on them and am happy to talk to him and meet him further. I share his concerns about the lack of sufficient response to the concerns he raises, but I will repeat one other point I have made: the emphasis of policy should be on building up crisis response services and better and stronger community support services to reduce the need for in-patient care as much as possible. It is not therapeutic to put children and young people on in-patient wards, and particularly not away from home.

Paul Burstow: I can recall many Labour Health Ministers telling us from the Dispatch Box that local decisions were made by primary care trusts and were not a matter for them. Will the Minister consider what he has told us about the CAMHS review? He has been frank about the fact that CAMHS are dysfunctional and broken. Surely the review is the opportunity to lay down a route map and set out how we can deliver the preventive early intervention services that prevent the crisis from occurring in the first place and the need for the admission. Do we not need that so that when there is a spending review after the general election, there is clarity about the investment needs for children’s mental health?

Norman Lamb: I think my right hon. Friend is referring to the children and young people’s taskforce that I established last summer. He is right that this provides us with an incredibly valuable opportunity to modernise the way in which we organise and commission children’s mental health services. There are many fantastic professionals working in children’s mental health services, but in my view they are let down by a dysfunctional system with horribly fragmented commissioning, which is a long-standing problem. Because we are involving experts and campaigners from outside and, critically,
	children and young people, we have a great opportunity to get services modernised and effective and focusing particularly on prevention.

Glenda Jackson: The Minister seems to be arguing that the solution to the problem is further evidence. For all the years that I have been in this House—almost 23 now—the issue of underfunding for mental health has been constant. The underfunding of services for children and adults who are suffering from mental health problems is an issue I raised in this House less than six weeks ago. It is unacceptable to claim that if there had been more information, measures would have been put in place to prevent children being sent hundreds of miles from their homes or being placed in adult wards. The Minister’s contribution has clarified the total lack of co-ordinated services for these young people. What kind of care would be afforded to someone in their home when, as in my constituency, their home may well be bed and breakfast, a hostel or some form of temporary accommodation? This is an urgent question; it requires urgent action. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Somebody said that was very wrong. It was a Shakespearian performance. In fact, somebody once said to me, “That person could have been on the stage”!

Norman Lamb: I am delighted that the hon. Lady made the point not made by her Front-Bench spokesperson, which is that this is a long-standing problem. The disadvantage suffered by mental health has been there for a long time. Indeed, it was exacerbated, if I may say so, by the fact that access and waiting time standards were introduced for physical health, but the previous Government left out mental health. If that happens, it dictates where the money goes. That, combined with a funding system that sucks money into acute hospitals but which in mental health relies on a block contract, means that mental health always loses out. It is this Government who are determined to change that to ensure that mental health is finally treated equally.

Tim Loughton: The Government can take credit for great progress in eliminating mixed-sex wards. The Home Secretary had some very encouraging things to say about children with mental health problems in police custody, and in the Department for Education great strides have been made in respect of kids in residential care homes not being placed well away from home. Many of us fought very hard during the passage of the Mental Health Act 2007 to get rid of the practice of children being placed in adult wards far from home. Will the Minister now, with the same urgency that led to those other successes, ensure that that is eliminated at last? In many cases it is not in the best interests of deeply troubled children.

Norman Lamb: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he did in his campaigning on the Mental Health Act and more recently as a Children’s Minister in the Department for Education. I know his passion for the subject and I share his view that it is intolerable that children and young people should go to adult wards. It has been a long-standing issue—it is not new—but it should not happen, just as it should not be
	the case that children are still placed in police cells. That is why I take the view that we need to ban it in law so that it cannot happen, and there are consequences if it ever does happen.

Kevan Jones: I do not question the Minister’s commitment to mental health. He is a great champion of parity of esteem, but he is part of a Government who are cutting money for mental health services. For young people in 2015 to be put in police cells is totally unacceptable. To pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) about CAMHS, is it not time not only for a fundamental review but for a new system, including the abolition of the present CAMHS system?

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks—perhaps he ought to talk to his Front-Bench colleagues about my commitment. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that although there is quite a mixed picture across the country, in many areas there has been disinvestment in children’s mental health services. They are local decisions, and they are not decisions that I accept. That is why I made the serious point about the absolute importance of introducing waiting time and access standards, including in children’s mental health services. We need data so that we can monitor performance against those standards, and we need a payments system that does not disadvantage mental health. I also share his view that we need to change the way services are organised and commissioned so that we focus much more on prevention.

Julian Lewis: Does the Minister accept that this is a matter not only of funding but of philosophy? Does he agree that part of the problem is that certain primary care trusts have adopted a philosophy of cutting in-patient beds generally? For example, adult beds have been cut by 35% in areas as far apart as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). Does he detect any rowing back from that rather extreme philosophy in the near future?

Norman Lamb: We want to try to ensure that when there is a crisis, a bed is available locally. With regard to the philosophy of seeking to reduce the tendency to have long periods of in-patient care—institutionalising people—it is absolutely right that we move away from that and focus far more on early intervention, community support and recovery. That is the general trend in progressive views within mental health. However, there must be a bed available when a crisis occurs.

Madeleine Moon: The Minister generously attended the launch of the report by the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention, which showed that one third of local authorities have no suicide prevention plan. Has he found any correlation between the lack of such a plan, poor CAMHS provision and a high incidence of suicide, particularly among young men?

Norman Lamb: May I first pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her inspiring work on suicide? Not many people in the House focus on issues that are talked about so seldom, so I pay tribute to her for the brilliant
	leadership she has shown. The all-party group’s report provides some really interesting and important questions of the sort that she has put to me today. These are questions that we need to ask. We have not yet established that link, but I think that it enables us to start asking local areas those questions. The Deputy Prime Minister has talked about the ambition of avoiding every suicide. We can improve services across the board by focusing much more on preventing conditions deteriorating to the point where someone becomes so desperate that they choose to take their own life.

Adrian Sanders: I welcome the Government’s announcement of an extra £7 million, although I do not know whether it will be enough. I am very pleased, on behalf of constituents in Devon and Cornwall, that we have a new facility opening in Torquay—it is not yet fully open—and hope that the Minister can visit it. I also welcome the fact that he is reviewing the place of safety designation, although I question whether that actually requires legislation. The case that occurred in my constituency raised something that he has not yet mentioned: the problem that a person trying to find an appropriate place has no central register to look at. If we want a hotel room, we can go online and find a vacancy, but finding a vacancy in an appropriate setting seems to take an enormous amount of time.

Norman Lamb: The case in my hon. Friend’s constituency highlighted an incredibly important issue. The lessons that are being learned as a result of that incident will result in improved co-ordination and reducing the risk of that sort of thing happening. It was completely intolerable that that young girl ended up in a police cell for that length of time, and we should all be completely clear about that. The crisis care concordat makes the objective clear. We asked every area to sign up—and every area did so by December—to committing to implement the standards in the concordat, one of which is to end the practice of under-18s going into police cells. I think we need to go further and ban it in law.

Mark Reckless: It is just over a year since 35 mental health beds at Medway Maritime hospital were closed. As those closures and the associated changes in Kent were referred to the Health Secretary, will the Minister review whether the changes promised to community care, particularly for some degree of residential provision in Medway, have taken place? Is he satisfied with current provision?

Norman Lamb: I am happy to look into that for the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he can come along to one of my Monday evening advice sessions and we can discuss it further. It is clearly important that the right provision is available in his area.

Mark Pritchard: I welcome the new funding announced by the Minister. Surely one way of reducing pressure on in-patient beds is to expand mental health assessments within youth custody facilities and expand treatment within those facilities. What co-ordination is there between his Department and the Ministry of Justice on that issue?

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. There is a lot of co-ordination between the two Departments. Indeed, he may be aware of a new taskforce set up by the Deputy Prime Minister to co-ordinate Departments’ work on mental health. There is a plan to roll out the liaison and diversion service nationally by 2017. No other country in the world is doing this on such an industrial scale, in order to ensure that someone who turns up at a police station or a court with an identifiable mental health problem gets referred for treatment. That is really exciting.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister is right about this. In the 10 years for which I chaired the Education Committee, I knew that child mental health services were not as good as they could have been. We now have a crisis. In the past, we patched things together with a partnership among children’s services, the local authority, mental health services in hospitals, and GPs. That partnership has been broken, mainly by the reforms that the coalition Government have introduced in commissioning and the fragmentation of so much else. The earlier a child is diagnosed and treated with therapeutic help, the better. At the moment, that is not happening. This is not just about beds; it is also about early intervention.

Norman Lamb: I totally agree. However, I caution the Opposition about going around declaring a crisis every second day, because the picture is very varied around the country. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about any unacceptable things that are happening. He makes a very good point about co-ordinating services much better. Indeed, a central focus of the children’s mental health taskforce is to try to ensure that we get much better, co-ordinated commissioning of care.

James Morris: In my capacity as chair of the all-party group on mental health, I recently visited the Elms centre in Dudley, which is providing an excellent CAMHS service for the people of the borough. It is important to recognise that there are very high-quality CAMHS services in certain areas of the country, although we accept that there is variability. Does the Minister agree that the challenge is not just about the order of magnitude of resources but about ensuring that commissioners are prioritising CAMHS at a local level so that they make the right decisions about the sort of provision that is required in their area?

Norman Lamb: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he does on mental health. He is another champion of mental health in this House. I also pay tribute to the people in the service in Dudley that he mentioned. I have visited a fantastic children and young people’s mental health service in Accrington in Lancashire—one of the six pilots on using psychological therapies for people with severe and enduring mental ill-health. He makes a very good point. We need to celebrate great care where we find it, and also ensure that commissioners, in local authorities and in clinical commissioning groups, take this seriously. The trouble is that when there are no standards at all in mental health, it is very easy for people quietly to cut back,
	thinking that they can get away with it. That is why I want to ensure that people suffering mental ill-health have exactly the same right to access treatment as anyone else.

Alison Seabeck: It was interesting to hear the Minister say that he has learned lessons from the incident in Torbay, because there was exactly the same incident over a year ago in my constituency. A young person who had committed a violent offence found themselves in a police cell for 36 hours. I spent the best part of the day working with officers involved with mental health from the local authority and the health service, desperately trying to find an appropriate place for that person’s particular behavioural issue. They had not got a list. We looked at a place in Somerset that had closed, probably thanks to the 6% cuts. Will the Minister help Members of the House by placing in the Library a list of where the beds are and what the specialisms are? It would be enormously helpful to us, and certainly to those working in that field.

Norman Lamb: I would be happy to provide as much information as possible—I have no need to keep anything secret and I would like to assist as much as I can. Again, I caution that children and young people turning up in police cells has been happening, quietly and unnoticed, for a very long time, but the truth is that the numbers are coming down. That is good, but I want it to stop altogether.

Sarah Newton: The Minister has been supportive of my work to secure specialist adolescent mental health services in Cornwall. When he next comes to Cornwall, will he meet me and local commissioners to see how we can benefit from new money and plans that have been communicated today?

Norman Lamb: If the diary allows I am certainly up for that, and I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work she has done in her county in trying to improve children’s mental health services. We must do that across the country, and there are many examples of real and significant improvements.

Diana Johnson: We are discussing young people, and Natalie Carmichael has e-mailed me. She is 17, lives in Hull and suffers from anorexia nervosa, yet she had to go to Manchester—more than two and a half hours away—to access 24-hour care. She states:
	“The illness itself is distressing enough…but I feel it made it ten times more traumatic the fact that I was hundreds of miles away from home and I couldn’t reach to my family for comfort and support in the tough experience I was battling.”
	What does the Minister say to Natalie?

Norman Lamb: I find it as intolerable as she does, and that is why we are investing to improve access to beds in the locality. Indeed, we identified the hon. Lady’s region as an area where there were shortages of beds for children and young people’s mental health, and we have taken action to increase that number.

Philip Hollobone: Which is the best CAMHS service in the country, why can it do it when others cannot, and what is stopping its best practice from being copied?

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and there are many excellent mental health services, as the hon. Member for somewhere in Birmingham—[Interruption.]—forHalesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), said earlier. If some areas can do things well with the available resources, then other areas can too. It is also true that some areas have chosen to cut funding for children’s mental health, in my view inappropriately.

Gisela Stuart: Birmingham is one of the fastest growing younger cities in Europe—40% of its population is under 25, and 30% under 15. Combined with local authority cuts of £281 per head in the next financial year, and a totally dysfunctional commissioning system, does the Minister seriously think that even the good intentions of the children and young person’s taskforce will address the problems we already have, as well as those that we can see coming but have no means of remedying?

Norman Lamb: Again, I gently make the point that we all, on both sides of the House, have to recognise the need over the next five years to make better use of the resources available. The hon. Lady’s own party does not propose ring-fencing local authority funding for the provision of mental health services at the lower tier level. We all have to work on making more effective use of the money, and I genuinely think that the taskforce is an opportunity to modernise how we organise services, particularly commissioning—having four different commissioners does not create the best chance of co-ordinating services.

David Rutley: Like many in the House, I recognise the Minister’s commitment to this important issue. I speak to young people and teachers, and there is a growing recognition of the importance of mental health services for adolescent children. What research has the Minister undertaken to better understand the root courses of the mental health challenges facing young people today, particularly the impact of social media?

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend is right to highlight an emerging and growing phenomenon causing increased distress for some young people. The prevalence survey, for which we now have the funding for 2015-16, is a massive opportunity to understand much better the scale of the problem we are seeking to deal with.

Pat Glass: In 2012, the Education Select Committee called CAMHS in this country a “national disgrace” and urged that the Department for Education and the Department of Health urgently get together to avoid the crisis we are seeing today. In the meantime, we have seen cuts in services, provision and funding, leading to the chaos today. I am incredibly unhappy with the complacency of the Minister’s answers. It is almost as if he is a spectator. He is the Minister with responsibility, and the answer is not a taskforce two years down the line or a prevalence survey five years down the line; it is to take action now.

Norman Lamb: I am left totally confused. The hon. Lady has just referred to my complacency, whereas the person who was just sitting next to her, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), paid tribute to my passion in fighting for mental health services. So which is it?
	If there was any substance to the hon. Lady’s question, it concerned the importance of mental health services and education working more effectively together and, as was said earlier, the role of schools. As a result of the taskforce, I think we can achieve much better collaboration among schools and mental health services. I also point out, as have hon. Members on her own side, that this is a long-standing problem that goes back far beyond 2010.

Andy Sawford: The Minister might remember that I wrote to him about a local family who went through a living hell when a young girl was sent from East Northamptonshire to a hospital in Bury, where she was left for weeks; where there was conflicting advice about whether she should be there at all; and where the family felt she was getting worse not better. Will he look specifically at provision in Northamptonshire, particularly the provision of beds for teenagers, and reflect that, to be fair to CAMHS in Northamptonshire, ours is one of the worst-funded areas for health care in the whole country—way off the NHS England target?

Norman Lamb: I know that the hon. Gentleman is campaigning on this matter—he is right to do so—and I would be very happy to talk to him further about this case. The circumstances he describes are intolerable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said, the frustration is that, if some services and commissioners can avoid that, why does it happen in other areas of the country? However, I would be happy to discuss the matter with him.

Points of Order

Diana Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In written parliamentary question 221790, I sought information from the Home Office about funding allocated to the child abuse inquiry for the 2014-15 financial year and for future years. I received the answer:
	“We will ensure appropriate funding”.
	Given that we are nearly three quarters of the way through this financial year, I would expect the Home Office to have that information readily available. I also feel it is disrespectful to Parliament not to provide the detailed information requested in a parliamentary question. Can you offer me any guidance, Mr Speaker, on how to take the matter further?

Mr Speaker: Responses from Ministers to questions should be timely, and it is also widely expected that answers will be as forthcoming and copious as the circumstances require. As the hon. Lady will know, the content of answers is not a matter for the Chair. In my experience, the hon. Lady is both an extremely assiduous Chamber attender and a very dextrous parliamentarian. I rather imagine that she will be troubling—in the perfectly proper sense of the term—the Table Office on a regular basis with further inquiries. I have never been a Minister, but if I were one, and on the receiving end of a regular spate of inquiries from the hon. Lady, there would be a point at which I would think, “Well, it is probably better to give a full answer if such exists; otherwise, I shall just be chased to the end of the earth.” We will leave it there for now.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall that, back on 22 June 2009, you spoke before Parliament about Speaker Onslow, who was in office for more than 30 years. You said that if elected, you had given your commitment to serve no longer than nine years in total. I just wondered—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. As has just been pointed out to me by the acting Clerk, whom I know the hon. Gentleman rightly respects, that is not a point of order. I have nothing to add and we will leave it there.

Lisa Nandy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice. As a result of delays and confusion among Government Departments, my question, which would have addressed Government proposals to deny the people of Greater Manchester a vote on their mayor until 2019, was denied entry to the correct Department—the Department for Communities and Local Government—whose Question Time took place earlier today. Given that the people of Greater Manchester have not been given any opportunity to challenge these proposals, is there anything within your powers that you can do, Mr Speaker, to ensure that the Government cannot show the same sort of contempt that they have shown to the people to those who sit in this Parliament?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point of order. My understanding, from advice, is that an error was made by the Table Office, for which an apology has been made. I hope in the circumstances that that meets the needs of the case, but if the hon. Lady thinks otherwise, I dare say she will return to it.

Lisa Nandy: rose—

Mr Speaker: If I have not got the point to which she wants a response, I will do my best to do so.

Lisa Nandy: My understanding from the Table Office is that there has been considerable confusion within Government about which Government Department is going to take responsibility for the proposals that are currently being rushed through the parliamentary process. Today’s Question Time was one of the very few opportunities before the general election for anybody to be able to shine a spotlight on what is happening. I understand that because of the delays and confusion, the question was incorrectly taken out of the shuffle by the Table Office.

Mr Speaker: My immediate response to the hon. Lady is that Ministers must take responsibility for the content of answers and, collectively, the Government have a judgment to make about which Minister will answer a particular question. I am happy further to reflect on the matter; and if, having done so, I have anything new that I can vouchsafe either to the hon. Lady or the House, I shall be happy to oblige.

Jake Berry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today, during questions to the Department for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made reference to the ancient county of Lancashire. As a patron and friend of the Real Lancashire society, I want to ensure that it is put on record that between 1168 and 1351, it would have been correct to refer to Lancashire. However, following an Act of 1351, the status of county palatine was granted to Lancashire because of its strategic importance in defending England from the Scots. This position was restated in correspondence by the Duchy of Lancaster in 1992 and 1996. It confirmed that the newly constituted councils such as Manchester and Merseyside did not affect the duchy and the county palatine of Lancashire or its boundaries, which remain the same as they were in the pre-1888 geographical county. Given that,
	Mr Speaker, I am sure that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and I will rejoice that both of our constituencies remain enclosed within the ancient county palatine of Lancashire.

Mr Speaker: I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I will carry the House with me when I say that that was not a point of order, but a point of political geography. It was certainly learned, and we are deeply obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

Andrew Gwynne: Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr Speaker: I am not sure that there is much of a “further”, but having indulged the political-geography enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), it would seem churlish to deny a similar prerogative to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.

Andrew Gwynne: I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Of course, I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of the history of the county palatine of Lancashire. However, I wish to place on record that not all my constituency is in the county palatine; in fact, Dukinfield is on the Cheshire side of the River Tame.

Mr Speaker: We are also obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that.

James Morris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I hope that it is. It would be a remarkable state of affairs if we could now have a point of order.

James Morris: During the urgent question, Mr Speaker, the Care Minister—inadvertently, I think—referred to me as “the Member for somewhere in Birmingham”. I think it important to place on record that, as the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, I represent a black-country constituency in the west midlands.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point, and I am sure that people in his constituency will be as well. I remember visiting the area, and the distinction that the hon. Gentleman has made is extremely important.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill

[Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Defence Committee on the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill, HC 508, and the Government response, HC 900.]
	Second Reading

Anna Soubry: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Our armed forces risk their lives to safeguard our peace and prosperity, and their welfare must therefore be a priority for any Government. This Government have shown their determination to meet their obligations to our servicemen and women and their families by enshrining the armed forces covenant in law and taking real action to improve the support available to our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and women and, of course, marines.
	We have given members of the armed forces priority in relation to health care, on the basis of clinical need, and we have supported their needs in relation to housing and school admissions. We have improved primary health care by integrating our single-service medical and dental centres. We have improved opportunities for service personnel to buy their own homes through our very successful Forces Help To Buy scheme. We have helped service children to find stability in schools by increasing funding for education to approximately £6 million a year, and we are helping service personnel to gain access to selected credit unions by providing payroll deduction.
	We recognise, however, that the obligation to support our armed forces goes far beyond central Government, and I have been impressed by the willingness of others to play their part. Every local authority in Great Britain has now signed a community covenant pledging support for the armed forces communities in its area, and more than 360 companies—from big banks and supermarkets to small businesses—have signed the corporate covenant pledging their support. Together, they are providing employment assistance, guaranteed interview schemes, and backing for our reserves campaign.
	Let me take this opportunity to thank all our local authorities. I wrote to each and every one, topping and tailing each letter. That seems to have paid off, because I have been inundated with responses from local authorities throughout Great Britain, of all political persuasions, describing in detail how seriously they take their commitment to the community covenant. I hope that all Members will now seize the opportunity to ensure that the covenant is delivered locally.
	There is, however, no room for complacency. The Bill is intended to ensure that we continue to do the right thing by our armed forces personnel. It improves the system for the handling of complaints in the armed forces, and it ensures that we can provide funds for organisations that support the armed forces community, wherever they are based. It improves the system for handling complaints in the armed forces and ensures that we provide funding for organisations that support the armed forces community, wherever they are based.

Jim Cunningham: I am sure that the Minister will know that the people of Coventry and Warwickshire take particular pride in the welfare of their armed forces. Can she confirm the level of support she is getting from Coventry and Warwickshire?

Anna Soubry: I can. I cannot off the top of my head remember whether one of the many letters I received was from the two authorities, but I would not be surprised, if I can put it that way. I have genuinely been seriously impressed by the work that is happening in local authorities. I do not care what political party is running those authorities. I hope they sing this out, particularly if they are looking forward to elections.

John Redwood: Will the Minister ensure that other Government Departments fully participate in enforcing the covenant? I have a case of a couple who have had to move twice recently to meet the husband’s requirements in the armed services. The wife is a nurse. She was on maternity leave. There was a delay in getting a job at a new hospital in the new place they were going to. The Government are now demanding all the maternity pay back because she was a few days out of time. That is not helpful and does not seem to be in the spirit of the covenant.

Anna Soubry: On the basis of what my right hon. Friend has just said, I would agree. I urge him, and any other hon. Member, to come to see me. I would have no difficulty in taking up whatever case it may be on behalf of a constituent or an hon. Member. I would be happy to do that. He makes a good point. It is imperative that we work across government. I am pleased that that includes working with local authorities.
	Our armed forces do not have the same opportunities for redress on employment issues as civilians—they do not, for example, routinely have access to employment tribunals. We must therefore ensure that there is a robust system in place to deal with any complaints they may have in connection with their service. Such a system needs to be able to deal with grievances quickly and fairly. When it comes to speed, we know that there are some serious failings in the existing system.
	That is not just right in principle but is essential for operational effectiveness. If a group of men and women are happy and content in their work, it goes without saying that they will work well, whatever the circumstances of their work may be. Having unresolved complaints breeds discontent, which can undermine morale and diminish our fighting capability.
	I turn now to the specific proposals in the Bill. The existing complaints system was set up by the Armed Forces Act 2006 and covers all three services. Many complaints are dealt with promptly and successfully, but we accept that performance is still not good enough and that it can be significantly improved.
	It is good to remind the House at this stage of some of the statistics. Fewer than 1% of our service personnel feel that they have any need to raise a grievance and use the complaints system. Of the complaints that are made, it is interesting to note that the majority are not about bullying, harassment and discrimination. It is fair and right to say that those are the most serious complaints, but I note that in the Navy, for example, 10%—I am not going to say only 10%, because 10% is too many
	—of complaints are about bullying, harassment and discrimination; the overwhelming majority relate to pay, conditions and allowances.

Madeleine Moon: Has the Minister seen the briefing from the Equality and Human Rights Commission? It says that
	“there are compelling legal and practical arguments for removing the requirement in section 121 of the Equality Act 2010 for a service complaint to be raised before a discrimination claim is made to the employment tribunal.”
	Does she agree that members of the armed forces facing discrimination should have greater rights to go to an employment tribunal?

Anna Soubry: I do not think it is as simple and as straightforward as that. As evidence emerges, one of the things we are finding is that more members of the armed forces—notably women—rightly feel more able to make clear allegations, which doubtless are well founded, of bullying, harassment and so on, and that often such grievances are settled privately. What I mean by that is not that they are settled in some cosy way, in a corridor, but that people do not necessarily have formally to go through the grievance system. I am open to making sure we get the right result, and I certainly want to make sure nobody in our armed forces suffers from any form of discrimination, bullying or harassment, but the way in which we achieve that is perhaps the debate to be had—we are all agreed absolutely on the aim.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) will, I know, have noticed that 10% of Royal Navy cases were for bullying, harassment or discrimination, and that the figure is 43% for our Army and 38% for the RAF. The figures show that, as we know, we have considerably more to do to make sure that it does not matter what anyone’s sex or sexual orientation is, and that they should be free within our armed forces, and indeed anywhere else, from any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination. I wanted to put on record the fact that the majority of cases are about pay, pensions and allowances.
	In her annual report, published on 27 March last year, former Service Complaints Commissioner Dr Susan Atkins she could not provide an assurance that the current system was operating efficiently, effectively or fairly. That is of concern not only to everyone in this House but, I assure Members, to all Ministers in the MOD, and rightly so.
	It is only right and fair that at this stage I pay tribute to the great work that Dr Susan Atkins did in her time as commissioner. I found it a great pleasure to work with her. I think she started her job in a different place from where she ended it, and I think she made huge strides. I have no doubt that she faced many difficulties in her appointment, but she seized them robustly, she took no prisoners, and she undoubtedly improved the system. I hope that the members of the House of Commons Defence Committee, who I know took a keen interest in her work, will agree with my assessment of the great work she did, and that we will sorely miss her.
	I also think I speak on behalf of everybody—and if I do not, I will be intervened on, no doubt—when I say that we have an excellent replacement in Nicola Williams,
	who will be our first service complaints ombudsman. She, too, is an outstanding individual and, if I may say so, an outstanding woman.

Julian Lewis: As a member of the Committee when Nicola was interviewed, may I say that I was deeply impressed by the way she stood up, with good humour and resilience, to some tough questioning? Does my hon. Friend agree that what is particularly important about this Bill, given some people’s fears that the chain of command system could be subverted or clogged up, is that proposed new section 340I(1) to the Armed Forces Act 2006 states that the ombudsman has complete discretion
	“to determine whether to begin, continue or discontinue an investigation”?
	Does she agree that that is an important safeguard?

Anna Soubry: I absolutely do, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his sensible, common-sense words. I join him in paying tribute—again—to Nicola Williams, and I think he will agree with me about Dr Atkins, too.
	What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. I think—and hope—that there will be some debate and argument, and I was going to pay tribute to the Defence Committee for the great work it has done over a number of years in wanting to make huge changes to the role of the Service Complaints Commissioner.
	I anticipate that we in this House will not necessarily agree on everything, although I would like to think we will be able to find a way of agreeing. The most important point, however, is that we agree on the principles of the Bill. We agree on what we are all seeking to achieve—apart from the thematic, which I know will separate us. We are all absolutely agreed in wanting to make sure we have an ombudsman who acts and works without fear or favour, who is rigorous in their investigation, and who puts the person—the individual—at the heart of all the work they do.
	One of the great joys of the Bill is that it is not overly prescriptive, and that is very much right. We want our ombudsman to have free rein. I am told that Susan Atkins would visit units and, if she was concerned about incidents or that people felt they could not raise a grievance or a complaint, she did not hesitate in taking that up, not just with Ministers but with the chiefs of staff. She certainly had the sort of determination and brave, rigorous approach that we are all agreed on, and which we will see—I do not doubt—in Nicola Williams.

Richard Drax: I am delighted by what the Government are doing in the Bill—it is excellent news. How can we be sure that the ombudsman will act swiftly? May I also agree with the Minister entirely on employment tribunals? Thank goodness the Government have not gone down that road. As a former soldier, I think that would be a disaster and would seriously undermine the discipline of a unit and the Army as a whole.

Anna Soubry: It is always difficult when, on one side of the argument, some people are not quite convinced by the Bill and, on the other side, other people are also not convinced by it. We are in the middle, and I am convinced that we have got the balance right. The chain of command need not think that they have anything to
	fear or that they will be undermined by the creation of the ombudsman and the new system. Equally, we have satisfied those who want a more rigorous approach to ensure that genuine grievances, which cannot be raised in the normal way by virtue of service, will be properly dealt with, and that if they are not—when maladministration is alleged—they will be properly investigated.

Mike Hancock: I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say that the Bill is long overdue and most welcome. How wide is the remit of the ombudsman? Does it stick at maladministration, or can it go further? The Minister said she wanted people to have every opportunity to raise their concerns. How far is she prepared to see that go?

Anna Soubry: I could be rude to the hon. Gentleman and suggest that he read the Bill. It is clear that it provides for an ombudsman in the traditional sense of someone who investigates when a complaint of maladministration has made. The definition of maladministration is broad, but we are clear that we are putting in place a new complaints system. As a result, we now have an ombudsman. That is not another level of appeal: it means that someone whose grievance has been flawed through maladministration and not been dealt with properly can take their complaint to the ombudsman, who will see whether there has been maladministration. The ombudsman will have the breadth of remit to go into the detail of the allegation of administration, and then to report without fear or favour and with rigour. At any stage and at any time, the ombudsman can go to any of the chiefs of staff or any Minister—most importantly, of course, the Secretary of State—and has complete freedom, should he or she so wish, to go to any member of the press and say, “Something is happening here that I am not happy about”, or to the Chair of the Select Committee and say, “This is something that I have found out and I am concerned about.”
	In many ways, those are the great freedoms, but it is clear in the Bill that the ombudsman is appointed to look at maladministration—never forgetting that it is the individual who has raised a grievance, sought redress, felt that they have not got it through the system and have exhausted their appeals who will go to the ombudsman on the basis of maladministration, like many of those who go to an ombudsman.
	We have drafted regulations that deal with the new system of complaints. Hon. Members have rightly raised the criticism—Dr Susan Atkins also complained about it—that too often there is too much delay. That is wrong, and that is why it is imperative that we reform the system. When we have the ombudsman in place, he or she must be in a position to conclude that delay is part of maladministration. He or she will be able to look specifically at that and take their recommendations to the Defence Council if need be. I have confidence that action will be taken accordingly.

John Redwood: Given that so many complaints are about pay, allowances and other financial matters, is there more that Ministers can do to ensure that more
	armed service personnel can buy a property of their own before they leave the armed forces, so that they do not become homeless when they leave their contract?

Anna Soubry: We have set up the Help to Buy scheme. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I cannot remember the exact figures, but I think that the scheme has now received nearly 3,000 successful applications. It has been hugely successful. In my limited experience, if members of our armed forces think that something is good, it will spread like wildfire, and that seems to be happening. The attitude that the Government take is that people should have a choice. Not everyone wants to buy their own home—it does not suit everybody—but we must give every opportunity to those who want to do so, because we believe in a property-owning democracy.
	I have mentioned the House of Commons Defence Committee, and I want to pay tribute to its work over many years in advancing the cause of putting in place a proper complaints system and a service complaints ombudsman. I look forward to the ensuing debate with members of the Committee. I am sure that we will agree on many things, and that we can work together on them.
	Clause 1 creates a new service complaints ombudsman to replace the existing Service Complaints Commissioner. Clause 2 replaces the existing service complaints system with a new and improved framework. I believe that it should be the armed forces that are responsible for dealing with any complaints from service personnel. That is the right way to do it. It is for the services to ensure that complaints are dealt with fairly and that the appropriate redress is given when complaints are upheld. When something has gone wrong, it is for the services to put it right. It is their responsibility and no one else’s.
	The role of the ombudsman should therefore be to ensure that the systems are working effectively and that complaints are properly dealt with. The ombudsman’s oversight of the system will also put them in a unique position to identify lessons for further improvement, which will benefit individuals and the services more widely. The service chiefs are content that the proposals set out in the Bill strike the right balance between creating strong and independent oversight and maintaining the authority of the chain of command. The former Service Complaints Commissioner was also fully involved in developing the reforms.
	A central feature of the new system is that the service complaints ombudsman, unlike the current commissioner, will have a power to consider whether a service complaint has been handled properly. If the ombudsman considers that there has been maladministration, and potentially injustice, in the handling of a complaint, he or she will make recommendations to the Defence Council to put things right. This could include, for example, reconsidering the complaint or rerunning a particular part of the process. The Defence Council will remain responsible for any decisions arising from the ombudsman’s recommendations, but it would need to give rational reasons for rejecting any recommendation.
	The Bill also makes other changes. It gives service personnel the right to apply to the ombudsman if they believe that the handling of their complaint has been subject to maladministration. It will reduce the number of appeal levels, which will speed up the process while
	remaining fair. It includes a new process of assigning a complaint to someone who has the authority to deal with it and give appropriate redress. It gives the ombudsman a new role at an early stage of the complaints procedure. When the chain of command has decided not to allow a complaint to be considered within the service complaints system because, for example, it is out of time or excluded on other grounds, a service person could ask the ombudsman to determine whether that decision was correct. A decision by the ombudsman will be final. The ombudsman will have a similar role in respect of appeals decided as out of time. The ombudsman will also retain the vital role of offering an alternative route for a serviceman or woman who does not wish, or is unable, to approach the chain of command directly, to have their concerns fed into the system. That is an important safeguard, especially where there are allegations of bullying or harassment.
	Finally, the requirement to report annually on the operation of the system will remain, ensuring that there is proper accountability to Parliament. I just wish to re-emphasise that the ombudsman has access to any Minister and any member of any Committee in this place and also has the freedom to go to the media, should he or she wish to do so. So, over and above the annual report, they have an unshackled freedom to report without fear or favour their findings in relation to any particular grievance.

Jim Cunningham: Does that mean that there is a provision for whistleblowers in the armed forces?

Anna Soubry: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a completely different issue. As members of the armed forces do not have the same access and rights as other workers, this Bill ensures that they have a rigorous complaints system, so that when they have a grievance, whether it is about an allowance or because someone is bullying or harassing them, they can make a complaint, which will be taken seriously and dealt with in an efficient and fair manner. If it is found that that complaint is right and it is upheld, there will then be efficient redress. So this is about individuals and their grievances. Whistleblowing is a different matter and does not sit within the service’s complaints, and I do not think that anybody would want it to do so.
	May I now deal with the remainder of the Bill, which is, I am happy to say, uncontentious? I am talking about the financial assistance to organisations that support our armed forces community. The voluntary and community sector has a long history of supporting our services personnel, veterans and their families. Many of those groups are small and locally based and run by dedicated volunteers and they have the greatest understanding of the sort of caring and focused support that is needed. The Government need to work in partnership with those organisations and that includes providing financial assistance where appropriate.
	Over the past four years, the Government have given £105 million to such groups to help them deliver the commitments of the covenant. That money has been used to deliver everything from veterans’ accommodation to short breaks for families with disabled children. The groups range from huge organisations—some of our greatest and biggest charities—right down to very small local charities delivering right at a local level.
	We are also looking at how the future armed forces covenant grant fund, set at £10 million a year in future—it is set in perpetuity—will be managed. If we are to make the most of that money, we must ensure that it goes to the right places. Organisations working with the armed forces community are based throughout the United Kingdom and beyond, and we want them to be able to benefit from this money wherever they are located.
	Under existing legislation, we can fund charities and make payments to local authorities that benefit serving personnel in Great Britain but not to veterans in Scotland. We have navigated those constraints on a temporary basis, but clause 4 enables us to deal with them in the long term by allowing payments to organisations anywhere in the world.
	The Bill has already gone through detailed scrutiny in the House of Lords where there was widespread support for its aims. There was a clear consensus on the need for reform of the complaints system although there were, of course, different views on the detail of those reforms. In particular, there was extensive debate on whether the ombudsman should be able to investigate wider issues beyond those covered by individual complaints. I am sure that this will be discussed further as the Bill proceeds through the House. No doubt we will be hearing from Members on this matter. I am happy for them to intervene on me now. It is an important matter and I know that people feel very strongly about it. I do not have any fear about engaging in that debate, although I will not intervene on any speeches from Back-Bench Members if they make the points that I anticipate.

James Arbuthnot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trailing her coat in such an attractive way. Might I ask why she is so set against thematic reports to be produced by the ombudsman, which was recommended by the wonderful Dr Susan Atkins?

Anna Soubry: I disagree with my right hon. Friend’s interpretation of Dr Atkins’s views. Obviously, I have seen the Select Committee’s excellent report. I may be wrong—I am quite happy to be corrected if I am—but I do not think she said that we should go as far as thematic reviews.

Rory Stewart: As a point of information, I spoke to Dr Susan Atkins this morning and she was very clear that she believes that thematic reviews should be conducted.

Anna Soubry: So that is her view now. With great respect to Dr Atkins, I do not agree with her and I will—

Kevan Jones: rose—

Anna Soubry: Hang on—I’m going to make the argument before I get intervened on again. I have been very generous.
	The ombudsman will look at service complaints and the Bill seeks to ensure that complaints by individuals with a grievance will be dealt with fairly and expeditiously and that justice will be done. In my view, the ombudsman should not look at any wider issues that may come up. I will give an example to support my argument.
	Let us say that three people in a unit make a complaint about bullying and it is found that that complaint is justified. As a result, there is redress and the two individuals who have bullied them are punished by being removed from their posts or demoted. That is the end of the matter and it never gets to the ombudsman, who knows nothing about it because justice has been done.
	What if, however, the three complainants feel that justice has not been done because their complaint has not been upheld and they believe that there has been maladministration in the way in which it has been handled? They would then go to the ombudsman, who would look at whether the complaint has been the subject of maladministration. The ombudsman might then say, “I have found that there has been maladministration and as a result of my findings I am making the following recommendations to the Defence Council.” If, at any stage of her investigation, she believes that there has been systemic, systematic bullying in that particular unit, she can go to the service chiefs, any Minister, media or Member of Parliament and say, “I think there’s a lot of bullying going on in this unit. This is outrageous and wrong and I want you to do something about it.”
	It should not be the ombudsman’s job, however, to then conduct an inquiry into that bullying. That is the job of the armed forces or perhaps some other body. The ombudsman’s job is to make sure that we have a good, efficient and fair complaints system. With all due respect, that is what the ombudsman should be concentrating on where they should be using their resources. If they start to investigate a systemic or systematic form of bullying in a particular unit, it is my respectful submission that they would be way out of their remit and treading on to the territory of others. That does not mean that I am being by any means soft on the complaint, because the ombudsman is the person who will highlight it, but it is for others, not the service complaints ombudsman, to decide on a full inquiry and make sure that proper action is taken. That is my argument.

Kevan Jones: I accept that, but the hon. Lady is wrong. My understanding of Dr Atkins’s views is exactly the same as that of the Defence Committee Chair. Since her appointment she has pushed the boundaries. If the ombudsman is going to look just at maladministration, may I suggest that the Minister speaks to Lynn Farr from the Daniel’s Trust and other families who have worked with Susan Atkins? The Minister might have great faith in the ability of some of the senior military to make major changes—cultural change and actual change—but that will not be done without an external body at least giving them a gentle push.

Anna Soubry: But the gentle push exactly is the service complaints ombudsman. If they find that there is bullying or harassment in a particular place—in a unit or whatever it may be—they have the ability to make sure everybody is aware of what is going on, but I do not believe it is then their job to investigate it. That would be a diminution of their work, which is to look at complaints, and make sure that individual grievances have full access to a system that works expeditiously and gets to the point of justice. She can raise these
	concerns—there is nothing to stop her—which is why I was such a great supporter of Nicola Williams, because she will absolutely be robust. However, such an investigation is not and should not be the ombudsman’s job, especially given the resources available to the ombudsman; their job is to look at the service complaints and deal with those individual grievances. I could be cheeky and say that if the hon. Gentleman thought this was such a great idea, why did he not do it in 13 years, but that might be a little underhand—

Kevan Jones: I will tell you why I did not do it.

Anna Soubry: And I will hear the hon. Gentleman. But if such an investigation is what he wants, somebody else should do it. It should not be in this Bill and it is not for this ombudsman; this is about service complaints.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Madeleine Moon: rose—

Anna Soubry: I was going to take the hon. Lady’s intervention, but if the two of them are going to fight, I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

Kevan Jones: The Minister asks why we did not do this in 13 years, but she just needs to look at my record, including my time on the last Defence Committee, and at the last Labour Government’s record, to know the answer. I argued for this, as did the Select Committee, back in 2004, but, as she knows, those in the chain of command do not like radical change. I see this as a process—we are getting to where we should have been 10 years ago—but I must say that the most vociferous arguments against bringing this in over 10 years ago came from the Conservative Front Benchers.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful for the factual explanation that has been given.

Madeleine Moon: The Minister has set out clearly that where complaints come to the commissioner and she begins to see thematic things happening, she can go to the chain of command. She can go the Secretary of State and she can highlight that, but during the entire time the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces has been in post, the Secretary of State, having had those reports, has had the power to ask for an investigation and has never done so. That is why we need the Secretary of State to pass those powers to the ombudsman, so that she can investigate.

Anna Soubry: I am struggling to have much sympathy with that argument, because it is certainly my experience that allegations are taken extremely seriously by the Secretary of State, and indeed by any other Minister in the Ministry of Defence. It is also my experience of the service chiefs, notably the new head of the Army—the new Chief of the General Staff—that on issues of bullying, harassment and the role of women and any discrimination against women, they are extremely rigorous. In every conversation and meeting I have ever had with the Chief of the General Staff, even when I might have wanted to talk about one or two matters as well as the role of women, he has insisted that we speak about that, such is his determination to eradicate harassment,
	bullying and sexual discrimination in the Army. We have seen a huge sea change, and it is to be welcomed, not criticised.

Mike Hancock: I am grateful for the thorough way in which this matter is being put to the House tonight, but one issue has always hung over the way in which the MOD handles things. If someone makes a complaint of bullying and then, in one way or another, dies, the complaint dies with them. Under this Bill, will it be possible for the next of kin to pursue that complaint, using the ombudsman’s powers to do so?

Anna Soubry: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In the terrible circumstances in which someone dies when a complaint has started, there are many instances in which we would want that complaint to continue, most notably if it were about something that might affect somebody’s pension or allowances and would therefore be to the financial benefit the family, or if there were a point of principle. The trouble is that when somebody makes a complaint about bullying, they make that complaint against somebody else and if that second person denies that they have bullied the first person, they are entitled to a fair hearing. In the terrible event that the first person has died, the second person cannot challenge the complaint and so the danger is that the person against whom the complaint is made is effectively denied a fair hearing because he or she cannot, in effect, query or challenge the complaint. I hope that that makes sense. It is a terribly important part of natural justice that if somebody makes a complaint against somebody else, the person being complained about should have the right to give their side of events so that whoever is determining the case can hear all the evidence on both sides and reach the right conclusion.

Simon Burns: What happens, though, in those circumstances, if the complainant is the one who dies but does so after they have given extensive interviews about their complaint?

Anna Soubry: I was talking about the fact that the person who is complained against should have the right to have their side heard, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his point. When somebody dies suddenly—especially if they have taken their own life, which is what we are talking about here, and if it is thought that there is some link between their doing so and an allegation they have made—that is serious stuff. That is why it is right that, first, there would be a service inquiry and secondly, and arguably even more importantly, there would be a full coroner’s inquest.
	I do not know whether many Members have had the opportunity of attending a coroner’s inquest, but when there is a great coroner—I saw one in my county of Nottinghamshire, working on an important case with which I will not trouble the House—one can see their power. The coroner does not necessarily say that a certain person is responsible for a death, but they investigate all matters leading up to the unexpected death and have extensive powers, including being able to take evidence from people on oath. I am content that in the terrible event that somebody who has made a complaint has taken their own life, and in which it is thought that there
	is a link, there already exists an excellent and rigorous system that ensures that justice is done, and that is the coronial system.

Kevan Jones: I am glad that the Minister has so much confidence in the coroners system. I accept that where it works well, it works well, but she also knows that there are some absolutely appalling coroners in this country. May I suggest that she looks at Mr Justice Blake’s report on Deepcut? It shows what happened to the families and how the MOD acted, and we hope that things have changed, but I would certainly argue against the idea that there is somehow a universal standard for the coroners service across the country.

Anna Soubry: I am sure that there are perhaps one or two bad coroners, but overwhelmingly the vast majority are outstanding and excellent and do an exceptionally good job. I might be wrong, and I will be corrected if I am, but I think that in the case of Deepcut none of the young people who died had made a complaint. Therefore, they would not have come into this system because they had not made a complaint. Although there might be a good argument that in those cases the coroner had not done a thorough job—I do not know that—we must remember that the Bill is about the complaints system. It starts with an individual making a complaint or raising a grievance on which they seek redress. We are in grave danger of not understanding what the system is and the huge distinction between the other existing processes that can ensure that we get to the root of the problem, find out what happened and make sure that justice is done.
	The Bill is small and tightly focused and makes important and much-needed changes. The Select Committee on Defence published its report on the Bill on 23 October and it makes a number of recommendations on how the Bill might be amended. I am open and always have been—my door is always open, and anybody within reason can come and see me. It may be that some of those recommendations can be adopted in Committee. They will certainly be debated. With one or two of those proposals, we have identified the problem we seek to solve, but the method by which we solve it is the difficulty. I do not want overly prescriptive legislation. In defence matters, if we legislate for things and want to change them, it is difficult to get another Bill in Parliament to do so.
	We have a duty to ensure that our servicemen and women know that their grievances are taken seriously and dealt with quickly, and that no complaint will be dismissed out of hand. We have a duty to ensure that we can fund those organisations that support our armed forces and their families wherever they are based. The Bill delivers the changes our brave servicemen and women deserve, and I commend it to the House.

Kevan Jones: The Opposition welcome the introduction of the armed forces ombudsman. The current Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces was introduced by the Labour Government as part of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which came into effect in January 2008. I should tell the Minister that that was no easy task. Other hon. Members and I—a few in the Chamber served on the Defence Committee
	at the time—did a year-long comprehensive report on the armed forces duty of care. They know that some of the arguments put up against the further extension in the Bill were put up against the 2006 Act. It was said that somehow the earth would stop if we interfered with the chain of command and had external scrutiny of the armed forces.
	We have been proved right in terms of how the Service Complaints Commissioner has worked. I pay tribute to Dr Susan Atkins, who has been so successful because she has pushed the boundaries effectively and ensured that her remit is listened to. The commissioner was introduced after the Deepcut tragedy and Lord Justice Blake’s report. The report was not only thorough but made some very good recommendations on armed forces discipline and dealing with complaints. In particular, it dealt with matters for the families of those who committed suicide. I put on record my thanks to Lynn Farr from the Daniels Trust, who over many years, and in the tragic circumstance of her son’s death in service, not only campaigned to ensure that the system is more transparent and open but made real progress. I also pay tribute to Geoff Gray and Yvonne Collinson for their work on the deaths at Deepcut. I am on record as having said this before, but no matter what happens now we cannot bring those individuals back, and I doubt whether we can get to the truth of what happened at Deepcut. However, the work that those individuals have done has changed how the chain of command and the Government deal with young people in our armed services.
	The Service Complaints Commissioner was a step forward. It was the first time that independent oversight was introduced to our armed forces. I remember at the time Conservative Opposition Members arguing that that would be the end of world, and that somehow the world would stop if there was independent oversight or if the chain of command was questioned. The world has not stopped. As the Minister rightly said, the chiefs have accepted that the commissioner has been a major step forward and has helped to increase and enhance the armed forces’ reputation, not only in the eyes of the public but in the eyes of those who serve. If the Bill is tightened up through some of the amendments that we will table in Committee, it can enhance that process. No one in the chain of command has anything to fear from the Bill.
	The Service Complaints Commissioner drew attention to the efficiency with which complaints are dealt with and the fact that individuals can complain if they feel that something has gone wrong. There is a culture not of complaining for the sake of it, but of questioning behaviour that is not acceptable, no matter whose behaviour it is. In 2013 the armed forces attitudes survey reported that 10% of servicemen and women felt that they had been subject to discrimination, harassment or bullying in service environments in the previous 12 months. That would not be accepted in any other walk of life, and it should not be accepted for members of our armed forces.

Richard Drax: Having been in the armed forces myself, I know that there is always a concern about politicians getting too involved in a service in which ultimately
	people have to go and kill the enemy, so a different mentality is required from that in civilian life. A balance must be sought, and I hope the ombudsman will seek it and will not undermine the armed services’ discipline and readiness, in the worst situation, to kill somebody. That would undermine the unique brand that makes our armed services so special and respected around the world. It is a fine balance.

Kevan Jones: I am glad to see that the dinosaur tendency of the Conservative party is still alive and kicking on the Back Benches. Exactly the same arguments were made against the introduction of the armed forces complaints commissioner. This is not about making the training or the discipline less rigorous; it is about behaviour that is totally unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman should read Lord Justice Blake’s report and the Select Committee report that went alongside it to see whether he can justify some of the things that went wrong then. I accept that, as the Minister says, things have moved a long way since then, but the type of behaviour that we saw was not acceptable then and is not acceptable now.

Madeleine Moon: The argument that has just been articulated—that somehow the armed forces are different and separate—may be part of the reason why so few Members are present in the Chamber. There is a feeling that that is so. The reality is that the law is set by this House. This House sets the rules and the legislation under which the armed forces operate, and long may that last. That is how a democracy works. The service chain of command must accept that.

Kevan Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are making progress by changing the attitudes of some of the old and the bold in the Conservative party and changing the culture among the senior management of all three services, who accept as a fact of life that bullying, harassment and sexual discrimination are not acceptable in our armed forces and will not be tolerated. The Minister is right that the present chiefs, as I know them, take a zero-tolerance view of such behaviour, and this will support them in ensuring that it does not happen.

Julian Lewis: I pay tribute to the hard work of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who has been a champion of the Bill. In order to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), I would share his concerns if I thought there was any danger of the system becoming clogged up with complaints that were designed to paralyse it. That is why I think that the provision in the Bill to which I referred in my intervention on the Minister is so important. The complaints commissioner has the right to investigate or not to investigate a given complaint, which avoids the danger that I think my hon. Friend would otherwise be rightly concerned about.

Kevan Jones: All I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that he should read the report of the debate we had when the Service Complaints Commissioner was introduced, because this is not about interfering in the chain of command. The present commissioner has done a very good job of highlighting the delays in the processes, particularly in the Army. Anyone who deals with complaints, whether in industry, local government or anywhere else, knows
	that it is better to resolve a matter quickly, rather than leaving it for a long period. The present commissioner has certainly been highly critical. When we look at some of the cases set out in the last report, we have to ask ourselves why on earth they took so long. They could have been resolved quite quickly, which would have not only improved the Army’s reputation for dealing with such matters but given the complainants satisfaction.

Rory Stewart: To address the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), and also the public, who are not necessarily focused on the details, perhaps it is worth clarifying that military discipline is exempt from the things that the Service Complaints Commissioner looks at. In other words, the commissioner is not set up to deal with questions of military discipline, which remain exempt. That is quite important for the operation of this law.

Kevan Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Certainly, the armed forces Act—I cannot remember which one, having dealt with so many over the years—helped by streamlining the three service Acts, because there had previously been a lot of inconsistency across the three services. I think things are now much clearer, especially as we now have joint operations, so the equal and correct interpretation of military law, rather than the silo system we had previously, with three different service Acts, has helped.
	Ultimately, we are asking servicemen and women to do very dangerous things on our behalf—I am not suggesting for one minute that the Service Complaints Commissioner should be on the front line telling generals what they should and should not do—but that does not mean that the general things that we and the current service chiefs certainly accept should be best practice in the three services should not be scrutinised and that there should not be support for individuals who find that the high standards that we all expect are not being met.

Richard Drax: I have great respect for the shadow Minister and am sorry that he resorted to personal slights, which I think was totally unnecessary. For the record, I do not agree with harassment or bullying in the armed services—I never have and never would. Of course those in the armed services should be respected and their rights should be looked after, but ultimately they are being trained to kill. That is the point I was making. As I have said, I welcome the Bill, which I think is a good step forward, and am entirely behind it. I just wanted to put the record straight.

Kevan Jones: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have been proud to be labelled a dinosaur in the present Tory party! I am not criticising him in any way; all I am saying is that some of the arguments made for not doing these things are the same as those that were made 10 years ago, and they have clearly been proved wrong.
	Another important aspect is that this is not only about the scrutiny of complaints, but about how many people make complaints. Only 8% of cases involved a formal written complaint. I think that once the Bill is in place, it will ensure that people in the armed forces know how to complain and what redress that they can have. We need a system that encourages people to come
	forward, not with frivolous or vexatious cases but with cases of harassment, discrimination, bullying or malpractice, which can then be investigated properly by the chain of command. If not, there should be independent scrutiny to ensure that the highest systems and checks are in place—zero tolerance, as the Minister said.
	We ask servicemen and women to do things that most of us would never be capable of, so there is a unique difference between them and the general public. However, there are some modern working practices and standards that we would expect in all walks of life, including in the armed forces, and that is why we support the Bill.
	We will be calling for the Bill to be strengthened in a number of ways. I hope that in Committee we will be able to discuss some of its aspects in more detail, which will not only provide another opportunity to discuss the role of our armed forces and the pride that we rightly take in them, but ensures that men and women from all our constituencies who join the armed forces get the protection that they would expect in any other workplace.
	I turn to the remit of the ombudsman and the range and scope of the powers that the Bill grants. Under the Bill, the ombudsman will not be able to look at the complaint itself but only at whether maladministration occurred in the handling of the complaint. Many in the House will agree that that is a very narrow scope. It leaves us in a rather perverse situation whereby the central piece of the system will be entirely removed from the issues that regularly affect members of the armed forces. The ombudsman will be powerless to deliver the protection and oversight that are needed in such circumstances.
	The Minister will probably tell us that it would be going too far to give the ombudsman such a remit, but, as I said, the same arguments were made when we brought in the Service Complaints Commissioner. It is not unusual for an ombudsman to have such powers. The public services ombudsman, the local government ombudsman of England and the prisons ombudsman all have statutory powers to investigate service failures in addition to maladministration. There is no reason why such a principle cannot be applied with regard to serious complaints brought forward by men and women who serve in our armed forces.
	Many Members have expressed the view—we will no doubt hear it again in their speeches—that we need to leave it to the chain of command alone to decide on these issues. I do not accept that. The system is one of partnership. One of the great things that Susan Atkins has done is to work very effectively with the chain of command, not only to educate but to change ways of doing things and move the agenda forward. It is important that the Service Complaints Commissioner does have these powers. The Defence Committee agrees that the ombudsman needs wider powers to investigate the substantial complaints.
	Another feature missing from the Bill is an ability for the ombudsman to undertake thematic inquiries of their own. That ability would have been very important in, for example, the inquiry into the events at Deepcut. I am afraid that I do not share the Minister’s faith that these issues are just for the coroners. Certainly, the idea that one would have any faith in the Middlesbrough coroner to undertake a vigorous investigation of a service death—

Anna Soubry: It is not just a coronial system because there are also service inquiries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those investigations are robust and thorough?

Kevan Jones: They are. However, the important point about the ombudsman—this is what is great about the service complaints commissioner—is that it is outside the chain of command, independently looking inwards. That is not to say that it would always be critical. On some issues, Susan Atkins has not been critical and has supported changes that have taken place in our armed forces. I give credit to the service chiefs for bringing forward some of those changes. If, in a modern age, we want a system that is going to be robust and seen to be fair, it is very important to have that element of independence. That is especially true for bullying. We know that on occasion bullying is an isolated incident, but there have also been examples of where it is part of the chain of command and responsible for the culture that exists in some areas.
	The Bill gives the ombudsman power to investigate where it sees fit, but we must understand what powers it would have and what it could do with what it finds. Yes, it can report to the Defence Council, but without any further powers or the ability to make changes, the onus in terms of the defence budget might be to ignore what the ombudsman says. We must clarify that point in the Bill.
	As I have said, some recommendations can be made, but we need a method to ensure that reports and findings do not sit on a shelf, and that the Minister of the day, or the Defence Council, does not reject or simply note them. That would undermine not only the role of the service complaints ombudsman, but its independence. People who go to the ombudsman expect to get a fair hearing and to know that something will be done about their complaint.
	It is vital that any new system works to the benefit of those who come to rely on it and that the Bill does not impose any unnecessary barriers on individuals and families making a complaint. The current Service Complaints Commissioner has been highly critical of the Army for the length of time it takes to deal with the complaints. Any system must obviously have robust time limits, but the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State will set time limits within which the individual must lodge a complaint. That time limit must not be less than six weeks after the date on which the individual receives their decision from their internal complaints system. In an ideal world that might be a simple system, but the nature of service life might lead to a situation where those time limits cannot be met. If that was the case, people would be time-bound when bringing forward a complaint. I think we need to consider that issue in Committee, and see whether we can allow some flexibility in the way that complaints are brought forward, so that someone does not miss taking a complaint forward because of the time limit.
	The ombudsman service must be independent from the chain of command and the armed forces, and must be trusted by the people it is investigating. It must also be seen by servicemen and women lower down the chain of command as a process that is clearly independent.
	This is a bit like déjà-vu, because I remember when the Service Complaints Commissioner was being appointed that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth)
	was one of the—well, he could certainly be described as a dinosaur if not even worse—people who said that the end of the earth was going to come if the service ombudsman was not someone with a military background. It is clear that service personnel cannot hold that post, but I would also be reluctant to have anyone with a direct service background. Certainly the criticism levelled at Dr Atkins when she was first appointed was unfair and has—quite rightly—been proved wrong given the effective way that she got to know quickly how the armed forces work, and the way that she got the support and good will of people at all levels. It is important that the ombudsman is not seen as part of the old boys’ network—interestingly, the first two have been women.
	On representation, occasionally those who lodge a complaint, or who speak of an injustice but never enter the complaints system, cannot see the complaint through—we have already heard about people who die before their complaint is heard. In these rare cases, it is sometimes important to family members that the complaint continues, and if someone makes a complaint against an individual, that individual will still have an opportunity to put forward a defence, albeit in the absence of the accuser. Also, many complaints relate to matters of service pay. In these cases, no one is required to make a defence, so it seems only fair that they be allowed to continue to conclusion. To stop such a case would be totally unfair. All cases should be pursued as a matter of due diligence to allow the ombudsman to oversee the entire system.
	This touches on something else the Service Complaints Commissioner has done. A complaint might throw up inconsistencies in areas of policy that need addressing, and just because someone dies, it does not necessarily mean the wider implications do not need addressing either by the chain of command or more widely.

Julian Lewis: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have only recently rejoined the Defence Select Committee after a long absence, so I am not as well sighted on the Bill as perhaps I ought to be. However, given that so much of the concern that led to this sort of legislation was about deaths, will he comment on the role of the ombudsman in relation to complaints brought by families of people who have died?

Kevan Jones: That is a very important point. I was a member of the Defence Select Committee when it looked into Deepcut—as, too, was the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock). We could not help but think that the way the families were dealt with was truly shocking, both in terms of basic human decency and because it meant that, unfortunately, the truth could never be arrived at. That was unfortunate for the families, obviously, and for members of the armed forces who were accused of things they clearly did not do.
	We have made progress, however, thanks to the Service Complaints Commissioner and this new Bill. The important thing is independent oversight. Individuals are not going to continue with a course of action if they know it is leading to deaths in the armed forces. We know there will be tragedies in the armed forces, on the battlefield and in training, given the robust and difficult training regime, and when they happen, it is important, for the sake of the families, that we get all the information
	early on; that the matter be dealt with compassionately; and that things be put right early on, if mistakes were made.
	I think there has been a change in this country—certainly in respect of local authorities and health boards, for example—and sometimes there is a culture of arguing why something should stay the same. However, if people say sorry early on and admit to mistakes, while it will always be difficult for families, at least they would know what happened. If so, lessons can be learned and measures put in place to militate against such things happening again, which will at least give some comfort to the families.

Anna Soubry: We do not disagree on what we want to achieve, and the hon. Gentleman has put it extremely well. I would not demur from anything he said about the need to ensure that the families feel that things have been properly looked at, lessons learned and so forth. Is that not a question of ensuring that we have rigorous investigations into deaths, which is different from the complaints system through which individuals’ grievances are rigorously looked at to get justice? I would suggest that the two are very different. Does he agree?

Kevan Jones: No, I do not. I suggest the Minister go away and read Mr Justice Blake’s report. In these situations, the issues conflate. In the Deepcut case and that of Lynn Farr’s son, who died in a training exercise in Catterick, part of the problem was the individual instance and how the individuals died, but there were broader issues surrounding the duty of care in training. I am not saying that training should be downgraded—I know Mrs Farr was not for that—but if we look at Daniel Farr’s case and how he was dealt with, we see a needless death that could have been avoided. If issues about the training regime at Catterick had been raised earlier, we could have avoided certain deaths. The two aspects come together. I am all for rigorous investigations of deaths when they occur, but I also want to ensure that if it is possible to avoid getting to that stage in the first place, we actually achieve that.
	Let me deal now with the armed forces charities, to which the Minister referred. The second part of the Bill relates to the financial assistance and benefits given to armed forces personnel. Let me put on record that we welcome this. As the Minister knows, I have worked with an array of armed forces charities over many years and they do a fantastic job on behalf of servicemen and women and their families and veterans. We must be sure that they are able to continue that work. The Bill covers two main points in this area, and it has been difficult to know how best to administer them. In fairness to the present Government, they have tried their best to get the funding out to those groups. Clause 4 attempts to put the provisions on some type of proper footing. Many charities, especially the smaller ones, rely on the grants and support they get from the Government.
	We also want to ensure that there is robust scrutiny of how the money is spent. The Minister will have been exposed to the internal politics of the veteran community and doubtless has some of the scars from which I still suffer today. It is important to ensure that the system is transparent and fair and that we get not only good value for money, but effective value for money, so that the support goes to the right causes. Some of the
	smaller charities should be supported. The Minister knows as well as I do that there are some fantastic very small charities with very small capacities that nevertheless have a great effect in the support they provide to the armed forces.
	In conclusion, we welcome the Bill. We will seek to improve it in Committee. The introduction of the Service Complaints Commissioner has, I think, seen a marked change in how the senior military and our armed services operate, and the system has protected those we ask to serve on our behalf. We will not oppose Second Reading, but, as I say, we will put forward amendments in Committee to try to improve and empower the role of the service complaints ombudsman. I see this as a journey. I have certainly dealt with this issue right through my parliamentary career. I thought I had escaped armed services legislation when I became a Minister, but lo and behold, it came back to bite me again. If we do this correctly, we can have a system of which we can be proud for not only protecting the individuals who serve in our armed forces, but upholding the highest levels of integrity and respect, which I know the service chiefs and the whole House would want to uphold.

James Arbuthnot: This is probably the last defence debate in which I shall speak.
	It is good that the subject is the introduction of a service complaints ombudsman, because the Defence Committee has been making points about that issue steadily since before I became a member in 2005. As far as I know, the only person who has been a member of the Committee since the beginning of the campaign for the establishment of a Service Complaints Commissioner —which was followed by the campaign for the appointment of an ombudsman—is the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard), who, like me, will stand down as a Member of Parliament in a couple of months. He will leave a gaping hole in the Defence Committee and in the defence community, and I pay tribute to him.
	I also pay tribute to the rest of the Committee, and to the amazingly dedicated and talented staff and advisers who support it. Under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart)—and I must say that I am delighted with my successor—it has continued to pursue the matter of the need for an ombudsman, and has produced a most thought-provoking and useful report on the Bill.
	I agree with some of the Committee’s recommendations. I listened to the passionate and thorough argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister about the ombudsman’s ability to investigate thematic issues, and, on balance, I think that I still disagree with her, although she slightly destabilised my views. I think that she is wrong to rely too much on the idea that the ombudsman would be doing someone else’s job. Given all her expertise and access, the ombudsman might be able to add something helpful by producing a report. From time to time, such a report might be a cause of some discomfort in the Ministry of Defence, but an ombudsman is not there to be comfortable; an ombudsman is there to right injustice, and to be a catalyst for improvement.
	However, I am not sure that I agree with all the Committee’s recommendations. I say that with complete diffidence, not having sat in on its evidence sessions. I do not entirely share its view that the ombudsman’s recommendations should be binding on the Defence Council. That position would differ from the position relating to the local government ombudsman, in an area that is even more sensitive because of concerns about the chain of command. On the whole, I agree with the Service Complaints Commissioner, who says that the Bill contains several “reasonable compromises”.
	The big picture, I think, is this. For more than a decade, the Defence Committee has been pressing for the replacement of the commissioner by an ombudsman, and, over time, it has won both the argument and the battle. I congratulate it on that, but I also congratulate Ministers on listening to the Committee. I especially congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister. Last year, she took the unusual step of delaying the appointment of a successor to the excellent Dr Atkins, because, among other things, she wanted to be sure that we were all getting the right person. She and other Ministers have taken the matter truly seriously. They have taken the Defence Committee seriously, and they have overcome resistance in the chain of command.
	Talking of the chain of command, I well remember Dr Atkins telling the Committee:
	“Some of the Service Chiefs said they didn’t quite understand what an ombudsman did, but they were sure they didn’t want one.”
	It was because of the quality of Dr Atkins’s work that she was able to persuade the service chiefs that an ombudsman would in the long run be beneficial. All I can say about her replacement, whom I have not met, is that they have my sympathy because Dr Atkins will be a hard act to follow.

Rory Stewart: On a point of clarification, the courts have ruled that the findings of the ombudsman in a case of maladministration and particular injustice will be binding on the Defence Council. The disagreement is simply about whether that should be in the Bill. I am interested in whether my right hon. Friend is opposed to the idea that the findings be binding, or should that be in the Bill?

James Arbuthnot: I spoke earlier of my diffidence. I think I should move into full retreat and just carry on with my speech because my hon. Friend already knows far more about that than I do, and I pay tribute to him again.
	I want to change the subject slightly. I have only a page and a half left of my notes. I hope that I can have a little indulgence. Dr Susan Atkins stood up for the men and women of our armed forces as they came under real strain. They have fought overseas, in conflicts not really understood or supported by their countrymen back home, when warfare is changing, technology is evolving, stability is crumbling and new threats are arising on a monthly basis. Against that background, at the NATO summit, which the UK hosted, we set out to persuade other European countries of the imperative of doing what NATO agreed only in 2006—that each country should spend at least 2% of its GDP on defence. How
	right we were to argue that. How important it is that, as the world becomes less safe, we do what we can to increase our security and reduce our reliance on others, particularly the United States. So it comes as a real shock that this country appears to be drifting towards an election with not one single party committed to spending 2% of GDP on defence. As the economy recovers, defence must share in that recovery.

Julian Lewis: My right hon. Friend, being as long in the tooth as I am, will recall that during the cold war years this country spent between 4% and 5% on defence. Therefore, is not 2% a pretty modest aim for us to have in the present international climate?

James Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right, if ambitious, but who could argue that the world is a safer place now than in the cold war years? I think it is far less safe because we live in a multi-polar world. Mutually assured destruction brought us, curiously, some stability.

Richard Drax: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reports in The Sunday Telegraph that after the election the Royal Marines will be next in line for the target is one step too far?

James Arbuthnot: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Out of enormous respect to the right hon. Gentleman and bearing in mind that he is standing down at the next election, I have been a little generous on those points, but I hope that his one and a half pages of notes do not stretch to engaging in a full discussion, tempted by his hon. Friend’s question.

James Arbuthnot: In order to reassure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can say that it is one and a half sentences, and my one and a half sentences relate to the 0.7% statutory commitment that we seem to be moving towards on international development. I approve of international development—I think it does us good, as well as the countries that benefit from improved education—but to have a statutory percentage to be spent on aid and not even a manifesto commitment on defence beggars belief, and we must put that right.

Madeleine Moon: It is a great pleasure to follow my friend the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who made a calm, measured contribution, and who showed amazing leadership as Chair of the Select Committee on Defence. As a new member of the Committee, I certainly found he set the tone for our many deliberations, and he had, I must admit, a calming effect on some of my more vociferous opinions. The House will miss him for his dedication, his belief in public service and his belief in the defence of the United Kingdom.
	This Bill, and this day, have been a long time in coming. A whole decade has passed since the Deepcut review by Nicholas Blake QC and the Defence Committee’s “Duty of Care” report, both of which recommended the establishment of a service complaints ombudsman.
	In that report, the Committee found that the resolution of complaints was slow and may not always be perceived as accessible and fair.
	Much has been said and done during the decade of piecemeal reform, but the underlying inadequacy of the system remains unaltered. In 2008 the newly established Service Complaints Commissioner, Dr Susan Atkins—I will not add to the praise heaped on her for her work, because enough has been said, but I totally endorse every word that has been said—said in her first annual report that while progress had been made, “performance is generally poor”. In 2009 she said the system was not working “efficiently, effectively or fairly.” She reported the same thing in 2010, 2011, 2012 and in 2013. In that report she said:
	“Since the role of Service Complaints Commissioner was established in 2008, she has not been able to report to the Secretary of State that the Service complaints system operates efficiently, effectively or fairly. This has been because of a lack of confidence in the system, unreasonable delays in the resolution of complaints and a lack of accurate data on how complaints are handled.”
	If this Bill does not tackle those complaints, we are wasting our time. Dr Atkins’s seventh and final report is due in the next few weeks, and I think it is relatively safe to assume that the pattern is not going to be broken. This Bill must change that pattern.
	The commissioner has pinpointed three main problems. First, there is a
	“lack of confidence in the system”
	from the very people it is designed to help. In the latest report, the commissioner points out:
	“Service personnel have a low level of confidence in the current system which does not offer all complainants the assurance of an independent person overseeing their complaint outside the chain of command in any effective way.”
	This low and decreasing level of confidence that personnel have in the system can be seen in the armed forces continuous attitudes survey, which shows dissatisfaction increasing in relation to the time taken, being kept informed, and support from assisting officers. For example, the survey asked those who said they did believe they had been the subject of discrimination, harassment or bullying in the last 12 months why they had not made a formal complaint. The reasons given included,
	“I did not believe anything would be done if I did complain”—
	54%—
	“I believed it might adversely affect my career or workplace”—
	53%—
	“I was worried that there would be recriminations from the perpetrators”
	—30%—and
	“I did not want to go through the complaints procedure”—
	23%.
	The commissioner also points to a “lack of accurate data”. In last year’s report the commissioner found that the data provided by the Army and the RAF contained a number of serious gaps and inconsistencies. Only the naval service was able to provide her with confidence in the accuracy of the data it was providing. That is fairly shocking in the days of electronic data. The inaccuracy of the data coming from the Army was particularly alarming, with the commissioner drawing attention to the Army’s failure accurately to record allegations of
	indirect discrimination. For an organisation as committed to ensuring diversity and inclusion as the Army, the loss of this crucial data is distressing. As the commissioner points out, these elementary recording failures not only undermine confidence in the efficiency of the system but hamper the shared aim to use
	“Service complaint data, together with data on discipline and administrative action, plus information from Service Inquiries, to identify areas and units which have problems and which may affect operational performance.”
	Thirdly—this is by far most important point—the commissioner highlights the chronic delays that riddle this system from beginning to end. Delay is by far the biggest and most corrosive problem. It exacerbates, and in part helps explain, the two previous problems.
	The evidence on the extent of delay in the system is damning. In 2013, aware that they had this problem of chronic delay, the MOD and the services agreed to meet a time limit of 24 weeks to resolve at least 90% of their complaints, and any complaint not dealt with in 24 weeks would be “red flagged”. So there was a recognition that there was a problem, and a solution, thanks to the work of Dr Atkins, was put in place.
	In 2013, however, only 25% of cases
	“were resolved within the 24-week target”,
	and:
	“Only 26% of complaints made in 2013 were closed during the year.”
	In January 2013, 325 complaints had a “red flag”. By December 2013 this had swelled by over 50% to 500 complaints.
	One need only look at the case of Parachuter Lance Corporal Tom Neathway to see the harm delay can do, and not only to the lives of our armed forces personnel. His story also stands as a textbook example of the structural flaws that any future system must avoid.
	In July 2008, Corporal Neathway, while serving in Helmand, lost both his legs and an arm when a booby-trapped sandbag exploded beneath him. Over the next three years—not 24 weeks, but three years—through sheer guts and determination and with the support of the armed forces, Corporal Neathway rebuilt his life and his career, and I pay tribute to that because the work the armed forces have done with seriously injured personnel is amazing. His story became a case study of how injured personnel can recover and overcome their injuries: he took part in the Olympic torch relay in 2012 and starred in the BBC series “Wounded”, showing the fantastic work done with our injured personnel. Sadly, however, in 2011, while at the parachute training support unit at RAF Brize Norton, where he had been based since returning to work in 2009, he was subjected to increasingly serious bullying by Regimental Sergeant Major Alistair Hutcheson, who at one point told the triple amputee:
	“You’re not much of a paratrooper any more”.
	Corporal Neathway did the right thing: he lodged a complaint to seek redress against an instance of bullying. That the complaints system failed him is an understatement. He had to endure a three-year ordeal in the search for justice from the British Army, facing a series of unacceptable delays that held him up every step of the way. When Corporal Neathway finally secured justice at the service complaints panel in October last year, the verdict was damning. The panel found definitively that the initial
	investigation by his commanding officer, Major John Chetty, constituted a professional failing. His questioning of witnesses was wholly inappropriate, and a review, by Brigadier Greville Bibby, which held up Corporal Neathway’s search for redress, was also discredited, with the Brigadier leaving the Army. As Corporal Neathway has said, the Army
	“had to be dragged kicking and screaming to an oral hearing. They had told so many lies and finally it all unfolded”.
	I am unfortunately someone who is often contacted by people when the system fails, so the Minister knows—we have discussed this many times—that I perhaps have a jaundiced view. I tend to hear from the people who are failed by the system. I do not dispute that the system works for some people, but I regularly hear from people who face similar failures to the one that Corporal Neathway experienced. To hold someone in a complaints system for three years is shameful—

Anna Soubry: indicated assent.

Madeleine Moon: I am glad to see that the Minister agrees with me. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people in situations like Corporal Neathway’s who have not been so lucky—

Anna Soubry: I know that it is not normal for a Minister to intervene, but I wanted to say that we are as one on this. The case of Corporal Neathway was shameful and disgraceful. I hope that the hon. Lady will take my word that at no time did I ever say that he was not being wholly honest in his complaint. I wrote to him in October offering to meet him, and I hope that he will take up that offer.
	The hon. Lady and I both look forward to a speedy inquiry—an overarching inquiry—into what was a shameful incident.

Madeleine Moon: I thank the Minister for her intervention. I know that she said earlier that she would not intervene on Back Benchers, but I have no objection to her intervening. We have had many a robust exchange in the time we have worked together and I have always enjoyed them. I have no objection to robust exchanges because at bottom we have the same conviction—that the best system for the armed forces must and will be put in place. We might disagree about how we get there, but we agree that we have total commitment to ensuring that the men and women of the armed forces will be protected from bullying, harassment and discrimination, and that those involved in such behaviour will be sought out and punished.
	Corporal Neathway was in some ways fortunate in that he had the attention of the media and he had contacts, but service personnel noted that it took that to get justice. They too feel the impact of the incredible lethargy in extreme cases such as Corporal Neathway’s, which can stretch far beyond 24 weeks into hundreds of weeks. The Minister knows that I have received complaints from several people who had given up on their service complaints and left the armed forces, because the delay compounded their punishment. They felt that the delay was used as a way to force them out, to make them and their complaint disappear. That compounds their distress.
	They had given their lives to their country, but when they were the victims, they were told that they were the problem and to get out. That is unacceptable and the system cannot allow that to continue.
	In the 2012 armed forces continuous attitude survey, 46% of respondents reported dissatisfaction with the time taken to process a complaint, with only 39% satisfied. In 2013, that had worsened to 66% dissatisfied. The Minister knows of another area in which I have taken an extreme interest. In January 2013, an article in The Times revealed that some 1,400 soldiers in the British Army had been illegally disciplined over three years, between November 2008 and September 2011. That happened because in November 2008 a change in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 meant that police cautions were from then on to be considered spent the second they were issued. The Army thought it had an exemption from the Act and continued to punish personnel who received cautions. It only caught up with the change in the law in 2011. It stopped the practice, but that left unresolved the question of what to do with the 1,400 personnel who, over the course of the two years, had received some form of administrative action following a caution. One policy brief revealed that at least 58 personnel had been dismissed from the services as a result of this double jeopardy. They should have received no punishment at all, but at least 58 had been dismissed from the services.
	After much presumed handwringing and discussion, the MOD came to the conclusion that it would do nothing. A British Army policy briefing from November 2011 suggested:
	“The longer we take no action the fewer the ‘in time’ complaints about other sanctions there will be. MOD policy may be not to accept out of time complaints on this issue.”
	It is now February 2015—

Anna Soubry: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Madeleine Moon: If the Minister will tell me that we have finally reached a decision about what we will do about the injustice to those 1,400 people, I will happily give way.

Anna Soubry: The hon. Lady makes, as ever, a good point. I have decided that the right thing to do is to write to all those affected—about 1,500 people—so that they are aware of the position. They will be reminded of the service complaints process which is available to them if they believe that they have been wronged in any way. Notices will also be placed in all the usual places, such as websites and some magazines. I can only apologise for the fact that it has taken us so long to get to where we are today. It has been complex, but we have got it right now and we are committed to making sure that we move forward as quickly as possible. I thank the hon. Lady for giving way.

Madeleine Moon: I will give way as many times as the Minister wants if she brings me such good news every time. I am absolutely delighted that justice will finally be done.

James Arbuthnot: I cannot remember hearing a victory such as that announced in the Chamber, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) who has
	been pursuing this matter for many years. I should also point out the value of having a lawyer in a ministerial role.

Madeleine Moon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his compliment: he is very kind, as always.
	I am delighted by that change of heart. I was especially concerned because there had actually been service complaints on this issue, but they had been stayed so that people could not proceed with them. The complainants were told that until the Department decided what it would do, their complaints could not proceed. A service complaints process in which complaints can be stayed for four years is unacceptable. That is why one of the amendments that the Defence Committee was eager to ensure was in place was that a person’s knowledge that they had suffered an injustice was not a reason for saying that a complaint was out of time. The Committee also wanted to ensure that delays, such as the staying of complaints, would not be acceptable and could be seen as maladministration even during the process of the investigation. I am delighted to hear the statement that the Minister has just made.
	I shall turn now to the changes proposed in the Bill. The introduction of the ombudsman is a landmark reform and it is most welcome, as are the powers to overturn the rejection of complaints applications and appeal applications. The rationalisation of the complaints process, including placing a limit on the number of appeals, is a common-sense approach.
	The Bill has many positive aspects, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I think it could go further. The ombudsman’s new powers to investigate allegations of maladministration are welcome. These are significant new powers which, if implemented properly, could allow the ombudsman to root out bad practice, inefficiencies and injustice in the complaints process, to everyone’s benefit. However, during the Defence Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, we revealed possible confusion surrounding the extent and nature of the power, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that in her closing remarks, if not now.
	There seems to be disagreement between what the Minister understood and what the commissioner felt was a real step-change for service personnel. The commissioner told the Committee that proposed new section 340H did not match the policy that had been agreed with the Ministry, and that it risked undermining what the Minister hoped to achieve from the provision. Proposed new section 340H(4) states:
	“The purpose of an investigation is to decide…whether the alleged maladministration has occurred”.
	The commissioner and the Defence Select Committee are concerned that the wording, “whether the alleged maladministration has occurred”, is too restrictive.
	The commissioner suggested, and the Committee agrees, that the Bill should be amended to make it explicit that the ombudsman could investigate and report on any maladministration in the handling of a service complaint, and we have suggested amendments to that end, listed in amendment group D in the annex of our report. In their response to the Committee report the Government dismissed this on the ground that it:
	“would require the Ombudsman to look for any maladministration in every case”.
	I thought that that was the whole point. The Minister is looking at me quizzically. Are we on the same ground here, or is there disagreement?

Anna Soubry: This is a classic example of us both wanting the same outcome, but there is a question of how we should achieve it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who chairs the Select Committee, because we have already discussed this matter with officials this afternoon. We believe that our changes to the regulations will achieve what we want—namely, that if the ombudsman feels that she has discovered further maladministration, she would nevertheless go back to the complainant to ensure that they were content for her to investigate it, rather than taking a blanket approach. The hon. Lady will understand that an individual might not want a particular matter to be pursued, for all manner of reasons. I am happy to discuss this with her after the debate, to see whether I can satisfy her. The point is that we want the same thing; there is just the question of whether we achieve it on the face of the Bill or in the regulations.

Madeleine Moon: Again, we seem to have made progress and I hope that we can all agree on this point. I look forward to discussing it further with the Minister and getting clarification.
	Anything that streamlines the process is to be welcomed, as is anything that opens up an opportunity for greater investigation of maladministration. The Minister and I agree that maladministration is unacceptable, no matter how or why it occurs. In cases of chronic delay, such as those of Corporal Neathway and of the four service personnel in the police cautions case mentioned earlier, the ombudsman must have the ability to intervene when the delay in handling the case has become egregious. For example, if a complaint has taken twice as long as the Ministry of Defence’s self-imposed time limit of 24 weeks, it seems reasonable that the ombudsman should be able to clarify why that delay is happening and intervene and declare it a case of maladministration.
	This brings me to another amendment that the Defence Select Committee has proposed, to ensure that the powers of the ombudsman are sound, reasonable, and beneficial. Perhaps the Minister has already made some changes in this respect. The ombudsman should have the authority to undertake, at her own discretion, thematic reviews into the working of the complaints system. In our report, the Committee emphasised the positive benefit that this small but significant reform could bring, not only to individual complainants but to Ministers and the chain of command. Our report states:
	“Rather than undermining it, the identification and resolution of these matters would increase confidence in the chain of command...and could contribute to identifying potential areas to be improved in the MOD’s and the chain of command’s responsibility of a duty of care towards Service personnel.”
	That proposal has the backing of the Royal British Legion, with the Legion’s director general Dr Chris Simpkins powerfully pointing out:
	“The problems at Deepcut could have been picked up much earlier if an Ombudsman had had the power to initiate their own inquiry. This is not an outlandish request, as the Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman has long had the power to start thematic inquiries”.
	The Equality and Human Rights Commission backs the idea, stating that it will
	“support the Defence Committee’s view that the Bill should state expressly that the Ombudsman can undertake thematic reviews.”
	Liberty also supports the amendment, as did Labour and Liberal Democrat peers during the Bill’s consideration in another place. The current complaints commissioner supports the principle, saying that there are benefits in the
	“Ombudsmen using their broad view of the organisations that they oversee to do research and produce thematic reports so that lessons can be learned about the issues behind complaints within a particular area”.
	The Government’s objections to the amendment, outlined by Lord Astor on Third Reading, seem to boil down to a concern that it could result in the ombudsman morphing into some kind of inspectorate or rapporteur for the armed forces, and that resources and time would be diverted from the ombudsman’s primary role. Affording the ombudsman the freedom to report to the Secretary of State on a matter of importance when the ombudsman considers it appropriate does not a revolution make. It is a common-sense, reasoned expansion of the powers with which the Ombudsman will be entrusted. The MOD’s fears that as a result of this minor power the ombudsman would become a vigilante investigator are simply unfounded, and stand in contrast to the amount of respect and responsibility with which the office has been entrusted in many other areas of the Bill.
	Delay is the enemy. It is the root of the problems in the current system and it is a blight that needs to be eradicated. The amendments will help the ombudsman and the armed forces to build a better complaints system. Doing so will bolster confidence in the system and in the chain of command. It is hard to see why the Government, who are making so many pioneering reforms in the Bill, are unwilling to accept the Defence Committee’s major changes and recommendations.
	The fight to establish a complaints system that is fit for purpose for our armed forces has been long and hard. We do not want to wait for a further crisis or tragedy before acting. To paraphrase Corporal Neathway, the Government and the chain of command have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards reform. The concerns of the heads of the armed forces are well known. The chain of command must remain pre-eminent and cannot be compromised, and their aversion to ceding too much control over the complaints process is obvious. However it is Parliament, the legislature, that manages and reforms the armed forces. It was Parliament that created the commissioner and is creating the ombudsman, and it is here in Parliament that those institutions should be held to account. The delays, the maladministration and the problems within the system must be resolved, and we must work together to ensure that the Bill does exactly that.

Rory Stewart: I will try to speak quite briefly. I pay a huge tribute to everyone involved for the way that this debate has been conducted. There has been a very good debate in the House of Lords, some very serious work by the Defence Committee since 2005 and the contribution of my right
	hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). In particular, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) who has put an enormous amount of energy, thought and focus into getting these very specific amendments in place.
	Broadly speaking, the Defence Committee is very positively disposed towards the Bill, as it reflects its work since 2005 and is a huge improvement even on where we were in 2008. The commissioner has gone from being a three-day-a-week job to a full-time job, and gone from having nine staff to 20 staff. The scope and the powers of the ombudsman will be massively expanded, and all of that is good. However, there is a “but”, and it is that “but” on which we want to focus for a brief moment.
	We are not, I hope, being pedantic. It is an important point because this is an unbelievably complex area of legislation. It is easy for people to turn up and try to suggest that the way that the armed forces are treated should be the same as the way that civilians are treated. Clearly, the contexts are completely different. Military discipline is very different from civilian discipline. Many of the criminal Acts that apply to military personnel simply do not apply to civilian personnel. Military personnel live under completely different conditions from civilian personnel in terms of their housing, health, non-union status, 24/7 jobs, and risk to life and limb, all of which put an incredible onus on the Defence Committee and on the Government to get this kind of ombudsman right.
	The problems that we have had from the start of this debate are twofold. First, there has been a very strong degree of abstraction. Understandably, people have been very reluctant to talk about concrete examples. When taking testimony in the Defence Committee, it was very striking that almost nobody mentioned the Deepcut case. Much of the conversation around this matter is taking place in a vacuum without people using individual examples. The second problem has been a very comfortable consensus. We have a strange situation in which, when we were taking testimony, there was very little push-back from the chain of command and from Ministers, but now we find that the Committee’s recommendations are not being accepted, and we have no clear sense of why that is. The oddity is that there is a basic disagreement between liberty and the chain of command, but that disagreement is not really brought out in public, which is another reason why this Chamber seems to be so empty.
	When we have private conversations with people, we realise that the disagreement is really profound. In a private conversation, some human rights lawyers will say that they disapprove of the entire military system and that things that can happen to military personnel would not be acceptable for civilian personnel. Equally, outside this Chamber in private conversations, we might hear retired generals in the House of Lords rejecting the idea of the ombudsman completely. Curiously, in the case of the Committee testimony, there was very much a push towards consensus that papered over some fundamental principled disagreements.
	The five principles that the Committee focused on are: independence, flexibility, the scope of the ombudsman, the power of the ombudsman and the transparency of the ombudsman’s findings. On independence, the Defence Committee suggested that nobody who had been a member of the armed forces within the previous five years
	would be suitable for appointment; that the term of appointment should be between five and seven years, as three years was too short for someone to get their feet under the desk and really understand the job; and that the job should not be liable for reappointment. That is standard practice for such a role around the world. If somebody is up for reappointment, the tendency would be for them to pull their punches in order to get their job back.
	On flexibility, we put a big focus on ensuring that there was more flexibility around timelines and procedural control. On scope, we pushed to ensure that any maladministration, the substance of the complaint and thematic issues could be addressed. Power has been another important point. What is going to be the power and how binding will those recommendations be? We went back and forth on that matter with my distinguished predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire. Finally, there is the issue of transparency, confidentiality and whether or not the Government can use national security to make the findings of the ombudsman confidential.
	The odd position that the Defence Committee finds itself in is that the Government have said to us that, basically, they agree with almost everything that we say. In line after line in response to our recommendations, the Ministry of Defence comes back and says, “We agree, we agree, we agree, but we do not believe that this should be in the Bill.” Looking through the eight amendments proposed by the Defence Committee, there seems to be only one with which the Government have any in-principle disagreement, and that is on the question of thematic investigation. Government seem to be comfortable with the other seven.
	Why is it then that the Government seem to agree with seven out of eight recommendations, but are not prepared to put them in the Bill? The answer appears to be that the Government believe that putting these things in the Bill would be over-prescriptive. Indeed the Government are attempting to elevate to a grand point of principle the idea that legislation should not be over-prescriptive. The Defence Committee respectfully argues back that those grand points of principle about what should or should not be prescriptive in legislation are marginal, if not irrelevant, to the specific Bill under consideration. One role on which we should be explicit is that of an ombudsman. The Government should put in the Bill the basic terms of independence.
	There is no time here to go through every one of those eight recommendations, but let us take as an example the question of independence. The Defence Committee has stipulated that we believe that the person should be appointed on a non-renewable term for five to seven years, and that they should not have served in the armed forces in the previous five years. The Government accept those recommendations but will not put them in the Bill. Why not? Apparently, because they think it would be over-prescriptive to do so. However, this should be an easy concession for the Government to make. To have the point clearly stated would reassure the public and reinforce the credibility and independence of the ombudsman. In fact, not putting it in the Bill seems to be based on a very abstract and theoretical notion.
	Our eight recommendations should be taken seriously because, bluntly, the Defence Committee is an elected Committee of the House of Commons. It is disappointing
	that, out of eight recommendations made by the Committee, the Government have inserted in the Bill not seven or five of them but none. No amendments went through in the House of Lords and no amendments appear to be proposed at this stage. Given that we are moving into a world where we have elected Committees, where we want these Committees to play a more active role and where every member of those Committees is elected, we would expect the Government to respond, at least in part, to the Committee’s recommendations, if for no other reason—this relates to the Geneva processes on the setting up of an ombudsman—than that we should follow the proper process of inclusion of stakeholders. The first Geneva principle is the inclusion of Parliament in this process. Even if the Government seem to have deep theoretical objections to the independence of the ombudsman, we believe that in this case, purely for procedural reasons, they should listen to the Defence Committee.
	In conclusion, Parliament has been deeply involved in setting the rules for the military from the very beginning. It tightened up the articles of war in the 1660s and again in the mid-18th century. It loosened those articles of war in 1776, and it did so again after the first world war and in the 1950s and 2006. That is exactly the sort of thing that Parliament should be doing.
	To get this right—and this is a very good opportunity for Britain to do so—we must do it in a way that is honest to our history, confident about the conceptual disagreements, and clear and precise about resolving the reality of the military justice system with the concerns of the rights community. That sounds jargony, but what I mean is that we need to be really clear that the military is different from civilian institutions. Various military criminal offences—such as mutiny, desertion and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline—do not exist in civilian life. At the same time, however, the right not to be bullied or harassed, as well as other rights, must be protected. Finally, if the Government can find a way of incorporating the Defence Committee’s recommendations, Britain has an opportunity to set a model for the world.
	This has been a good process for the House of Lords and the Committee and because of the inclusion of Dr Susan Atkins. It has been a particularly good process because of the amount of energy the hon. Member for Bridgend has devoted to it from the beginning. Let us finish the process with as much positive spirit as we began it. I ask the Government to show some flexibility in their response to the independence, flexibility, scope, power and transparency of the ombudsman, as set out by the Defence Committee.

Nick Harvey: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I welcome and support the Bill so far as it goes, but, like others who have spoken, I believe it could go further.
	I welcome the work of the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces in recent years and applaud what she has done within the remit she has been given. I welcome the reports she has issued, and the Government are to be commended for listening to some of the points she has made and recognising, as the Defence Committee and others have said, that further progress needs to be made.
	I recognise that a delicate balance has to be struck between the authority of the chain of command and the need for a light to be shone on the activities of the armed forces. We know from the sorts of cases that hon. and right hon. Members have referred to that that has not always happened. I agree with the characterisation of the evolution of the system given by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). When the idea of the commissioner was first mooted, it was claimed that the world would end because it was so revolutionary and it would drive a coach and horses through the traditional conceptions of military authority and discipline, but it has not. It has made some modest and worthwhile progress, but we now need to go further.
	Ministers have been right to engage with other stakeholders and to recognise the need to amend the status quo, but their proposals err on the side of caution. I listened with interest to the Defence Committee Chairman describe the five characteristics of an ombudsman system, and my one particular misgiving is that we have not gone further in terms of scope. The Minister said that other ombudsmen restrict themselves to issues of maladministration. That is certainly true of some, but it is not by any means true of all. If one looks at the definitions of ombudsmen more generally, one will see that their purpose is to address the substance of a grievance or a complaint by an individual against an institution or bureaucracy. I do not believe that simply looking at the question of maladministration is an adequate way of doing that.
	It is important that the new ombudsman should be able not simply to report on thematic issues to the Secretary of State, but to institute investigations and make reports and recommendations for everybody to see. They should also be able to get at the substance of a complaint. Of course, the chain of command should always get the first go at that. As the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has said, we cannot compare the relationship between an armed serviceman and the forces in any way to ordinary employment because of the depth of the relationship, which affects housing, families, welfare and service discipline. It is precisely because that relationship is so much more comprehensive that it is important that there should be external scrutiny and a light shone on it. The police, the health service and every other part of our public life has to accept external scrutiny, and I do not believe that the armed forces should be any different.
	I shall follow with interest how the debate unfolds in Committee, but it is my belief that the Bill does not go as far as it might and that we are missing an opportunity to take more comprehensive action to improve the way in which complaints are dealt with in the armed forces.

Kevan Jones: This has been an excellent debate and I think there is general consensus across the House that the proposed service complaints ombudsman is a good thing.
	I served with the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot)—I would prefer to call him my right hon. Friend—on the Defence Committee, and as a Chairman he was not only very effective but tried
	to get consensus across the Committee. That made our debates far better and our reports more effective in persuading the Government to take them seriously. I shall certainly be sad to see him leave this place, but I do not think his retirement will be the last we hear of him.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on her tenacious pursuit of fairness for members of our armed forces. I was very sad when I heard about the case of Corporal Neathway. I met him a number of times when I was a Minister, and my hon. Friend is right to say that a braver, more courageous individual you could not meet. He has given service to this country, and despite the appalling injuries he suffered, he had the sense of purpose and character to overcome them. Frankly, they way in which he was treated was unacceptable and I agree with what the Minister said about that.
	That case brings us to one of the issues at hand. The Army needs to wake up to the fact that the idea that cases can be allowed to go on for that long without redress is totally unacceptable. The ombudsman should be allowed to focus on that. As I said earlier, speedy resolution of some of the cases would lead not only to satisfaction for either the complainant or those who are being complained about, but to reform and action where needed. The armed forces should not be any different from any other public body with regard to how they react to such complaints.

Bob Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: Oh, here we go.

Bob Stewart: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman on this point. I think it was also a failure of the chain of command that it did not push for an early resolution, because that would have sorted it out.

Kevan Jones: I was going to label the hon. Gentleman a dinosaur, but he is obviously on the new progressive wing of the Conservative party.

Anna Soubry: You’re so tribal!

Kevan Jones: Yes, I am—I wear that badge with honour.
	The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is completely right. Without some external push, oversight or, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) said, light shone on the process, there will be no change. That is what the ombudsman will provide.
	I also congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on an excellent report on the Bill. He raises a fair point: if there is disagreement, people should say so. The chain of command must say what, if anything, it objects to. It should not say it behind closed doors but should come out into the light.
	I look forward to the Committee stage. We shall table amendments and I hope that we will get the ombudsman that not only this House needs but that the servicemen and women who serve our nation with pride and bravery need.

Anna Soubry: With the leave of the House, let me try to respond to some of the good points that have been made in this excellent debate. It would have been nice to have a bit more support for my arguments against the need for a thematic role for the ombudsman, but I have no doubt that we shall continue that debate in Committee and that it will go on and on. I have said why I think that it is not a good idea and I hope that Members on both sides of the House accept that I am not a Minister who stands at this Dispatch Box and says things that I do not believe in. I did not do that when I was on the Back Benches, either. I believe it would be wrong for the service complaints ombudsman to have an extra thematic role for the reasons I have given. I say that because I believe in it, not because I have been told to believe in it by anybody else.
	I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). Sadly, I never served on the Defence Committee, which he chaired with huge integrity, great fairness and utter thoroughness. He will be hugely missed in this place. I congratulate him on his speech and I could not possibly comment on his comments about the funding and the next Government. All I can say is that it is generally accepted that I have gone somewhat native—he might be pleased to know that. He made the sort of sensible speech that we would expect and he showed great understanding and insight.
	I also pay tribute to my friend—she is my friend today—the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). I think our relationship started over polycystic kidneys. You do not need to know why, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we once had a debate on the subject. We agree on so much, but let me deal briefly with the stuff on which we do not agree. I would not be over-prescriptive on the question of the delay, because in some cases the nature of the case will mean that it takes more than six months to reach a conclusion. Six months is an eminently admirable goal, but I do not want to be over-prescriptive. Sometimes a witness might be on operations abroad, or things might get complicated because they involve a pension or an allowance. In principle, however, that should absolutely be the goal. There is no excuse for the appalling delays not just in Corporal Neathway’s case but in many other examples. I think that the hon. Lady was saying that unfortunately, in too many parts of our armed forces, the attitude is that there is not a problem. That is why we have delays and such lackadaisical attitudes.
	Too many have the attitude that there is not a problem and that such cases are just about some whining woman or difficult male. There is a problem. People have grievances and complaints and we need a system that addresses that fact and ensures that they get justice. When they do not, we will have the ombudsman, and I think that that is where there is a bit of confusion. There is a profound difference between the service complaints ombudsman that the Government want and an armed forces ombudsman who might or might not consider the broader matters. That might not be a long way down the line, but it is not covered by this role.
	The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) made a very good speech. I did not agree with all of it, but nevertheless his point was well made. Finally, let me say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and
	The Border (Rory Stewart), who chairs the Select Committee. I am sorry that this has not happened before and I do not know why it has not, but let us start now. I am more than happy to consider the amendments from the Defence Committee. Some are flawed—I am sorry, but some of them are—but let us meet and go through them. If we can find a way of sorting things out so that we do not fall out and so that we reach compromises, fair enough. He knows why I take the view I do about over-prescription in the Bill, but I do not want to fall out with people. I want this to happen because it is the right thing to do. Notwithstanding the money provisions, it is the right thing to do by our servicemen and women who deserve and need a proper system. That is what this Bill will deliver.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 12 February 2015.
	(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen's recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of–
	(a) any expenditure incurred under the Act by the Secretary of State; and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21 July 2014 (Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Clause 3
	 — 
	Responsibility

Chris Grayling: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment 2.

Chris Grayling: I welcome the return of the Bill to the House so that we can consider the amendments made in the Lords. I have listened carefully and with interest to the debates as the Bill has made progress and I must say that I have been amused by the position taken by Her Majesty’s official Opposition, who have been vociferous in saying that the Bill is pointless and meaningless. When it arrived in the other place, however, they campaigned vigorously against the clause on responsibility. You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if it is meaningless there is not much point in campaigning against it. The Bill is not at all meaningless. It has a purpose in protecting employers, particularly smaller employers, against the compensation culture and it will, I believe, make a significant difference. If it made no difference at all, why on earth did the Opposition try to strike out the clause? We know that the real reason the Opposition did not vote against the Bill is that they know that it addresses the genuine worries that ordinary people have about the growth of the compensation culture, which they talked about while in government and have conveniently forgotten about.
	As hon. Members will recall, the Bill is designed to reassure hard-working individuals and organisations who have demonstrated a responsible approach to safety, who have been acting for the benefit of society or who have intervened in emergencies, that the courts will always take the context of their actions into account when determining whether they have been negligent. In spite of the negative comments about the Bill from the Opposition and in the other place, I am glad that the Bill returns to the House with only two modest changes.
	Let me turn to the detail of the changes. Both were Government amendments tabled in response to concerns raised about specific aspects of the drafting and I ask the House to agree with them. Amendment 1 is to clause 3, on responsibility, and amendment 2 is to clause 4, on heroism.
	On amendment 1, when clause 3 left this House it provided that the court should consider whether a person had demonstrated a “generally responsible” approach towards safety during the course of an activity in which an act of negligence was alleged to have occurred. The Opposition said that that would erode the rights of workers to sue their employers following injuries suffered in the workplace. On report, for example, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said that the clause was designed to
	“allow a defendant to deflect from or evade responsibility in negligence and breach-of-statutory-duty cases.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 689.]
	On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Kennedy of Southwark added that
	“the legislation could worsen the position of workers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2014; Vol. 756, c. 1570.]
	Those assertions are entirely without foundation.
	I want to make it clear that the Bill will not stop irresponsible employers from being found negligent when the circumstances of the case warrant it or stop the courts considering all relevant factors when reaching a decision on the claim. It is simply about ensuring that the courts take a common-sense approach to considering claims brought against hard-working owners of small businesses and others by considering their overall approach to safety in the course of the activity in which an accident occurred.
	Although amendments proposed in the other place that would have undermined the main policy objectives of clause 3 were not carried, we agreed to one amendment designed to improve the clarity of the clause—namely the replacement of the word “generally” with the word “predominantly”. We made that amendment following concerns that were raised about possible uncertainty over the meaning of the term “generally responsible” arising from the fact that the word “generally” is capable of bearing a range of definitions.
	Lords amendment 1 helps to provide greater clarity. The word “predominantly” is a stronger and clearer term than the word “generally” and, on reflection, better achieves our policy aims. It makes it clearer that a body or individual who takes a slapdash approach to safety on a particular occasion cannot escape liability merely by pointing to a previously unblemished health and safety record. Instead, it makes it clear that, if a hard-working individual such as the owner of a small business is doing his best to keep people safe and something goes wrong in spite of his best efforts, the courts will always consider whether his approach to safety during the activity in question was a predominantly responsible one.
	That is the key point. That is why we introduced the Bill and why clause 3 will make a difference. It will provide greater protection to an employer who seeks to do the right thing and to look after his or her employees, and something goes wrong that could not have been foreseen. Of course, the Labour party, in hock as it is to the trade unions, immediately assumes the worst and immediately wants to do down the small business person. That is a sign of the way the Labour party has gone in the past few years. It has moved away from being sympathetic to the interests of small business and instead is back to the days of union domination and saying, “Let’s back the workers.” This is a responsible, balanced measure that ensures that those people who are genuinely wronged retain their legal redress, but that the law is on the side of the responsible employer who seeks to do the right thing.
	Lords amendment 2 relates to clause 4, on heroism. As hon. Members will recall, the clause requires the court to consider whether a person was intervening heroically in an emergency when the negligence is alleged to have occurred. We know from polls carried out by St John Ambulance and the British Heart Foundation that worries about liability can deter people from intervening
	to help others in emergencies. That is something we should all be concerned about, and the clause is designed to give people greater reassurance that the law will be on their side in those circumstances.
	We debated a proposed amendment that emanated from St John Ambulance. I listened carefully to the arguments set out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). After we passed the measure, I did as I undertook to do and went away and thought carefully about the measure. I listened to debates in the Lords and decided there was no reason not to accept the St John Ambulance recommendation and the recommendation made by my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend. I hope they accept that we made the amendment in the good spirit of trying to get the measure absolutely right.
	When clause 4 left this House, the meaning of “heroism” included a requirement that the defendant must have been acting
	“without regard to his or her own safety or other interests”.
	My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend questioned whether the drafting of the clause might inadvertently exempt some very brave people who intervened in emergencies only after considering the risk to themselves and others. Initially, we thought it would be unlikely for the courts to interpret the clause in that way. However, in the light of the concerns raised on that point by St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, and after discussions with those organisations and after considering the comments made in debates in the House and the other place, we decided that, to avoid any possible misinterpretation, the simplest solution would be to omit from the clause the reference to acting
	“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”
	That means that it will be absolutely clear that the clause applies in any case where a person intervenes in an emergency to assist somebody in danger, irrespective of whether he or she acted entirely spontaneously or after carefully weighing up the risks. The amendment has been greeted warmly by St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, which have said that they will use the opportunity that the Bill provides to encourage and reassure new first aid volunteers that the law is on their side.
	That is what the Bill is all about. It is about saying to three groups of people seeking to do the right thing in our society that the law is on their side—people acting heroically, people acting in the interest of others, and people acting responsibly, particularly employers taking a responsible approach to health and safety matters in their own workplace. For many years in this country, we have faced a compensation culture. The Government have sought to make a number of changes to combat that compensation culture. We have made changes to the way in which legal fees are paid, and we have made changes to the way in which the rules apply. The Bill will add to a positive step forward. [Interruption.]
	The fact that Opposition Front Benchers are sitting chuntering is, to my mind, a sign that they really do not care about tackling the compensation culture in this country. They do not care about the interests of small employers, and they do not care about people who are seeking to do the right thing. They are interested only in looking after the vested interests that provide them with
	their finance and backing. It is a sign of what divides this Government from the Opposition. It is a sign that this Government are on the side of hard-working people and people who seek to do the right thing. Opposite we have a party that simply represents vested interests and does not care about such things. That is why Labour Members have sought to challenge the Bill all the way through. The argument that the Bill was meaningless followed by the attempt to strike out parts of it completely undermined what they said and showed how bankrupt their current thinking is.
	The two amendments make a helpful improvement to the Bill. I hope that the House supports them, and that the Bill can pass into law. I hope we send the clear message to those people that this Parliament is on their side.

Andy Slaughter: I do not often feel compassion for the Lord Chancellor, but even he must have approached the Chamber this afternoon with how sad steps. Today, on the heels of the dismissal of the chief inspector of prisons comes the resignation of the conflicted chief inspector of probation, and so, on the first full day of probation privatisation, we have no one in charge of standards in the service.
	The Lord Chancellor is scattering confidential data around like confetti, he appears to have changed at whim the burden of proof in criminal cases, and this afternoon, one of his favourite private contractors, Capita, was fined £16,000 by the president of the—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman is meant to be speaking to the Lords amendment. I normally give quite a lot of leeway for a general introduction, but he must speak to the amendment.

Andy Slaughter: Indeed, that is what I intend to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply making the point that, with all of that going on just in the past few days, here we are talking about the Lord Chancellor’s heroes Bill. He is fiddling while Rome burns: more Nero than hero.
	We are all sick of the Bill. I suspect the Lord Chancellor is sick of the Bill. Like many of his projects, it began as an exercise in public relations and a nod towards the tabloids, and a coded attack on the rights of the individual to find redress through the law. Both the ridicule and the incredulity with which it has been met on both sides of both Houses, and from almost every expert commentator, has exposed its pointlessness and fragility.
	The Bill will be locked away from public gaze, elided by the courts and ignored by everyone else until some future Government finds a space in the legislative timetable to repeal it. The noble Lord Pannick said that he could not
	“remember a legislative proposal that has been the subject of more sustained ridicule and derision.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2014; Vol. 758, c. 16.]
	The chair of the Law Society policy board today wrote that there were two views of the Bill: that is was
	“vague, meaningless and otiose”
	or
	“so ill-defined that it is dangerous to the point of mischievousness”.
	Given that history, do the two minor amendments do anything to improve the Bill? They certainly do not make it any worse, if that is any comfort to the Lord Chancellor, so we have no reason to vote against them.
	Amendment 2 has been urged on the Government since Second Reading on 21 July 2014, when the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) pointed out the unhelpful nature of the final words of clause 4. I moved to delete the offending words—
	“and without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests”—
	in Committee, supported by a very strong argument from St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross. However, it was not until Report in the other place that the Government finally gave in, stating:
	“This will put beyond doubt that the clause applies to anybody who intervenes in an emergency to help somebody in danger, regardless of whether they acted entirely spontaneously or weighed up the risks before intervening.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2014; Vol. 758, c. 44.]
	I am not sure that that was the point of the objections; rather, it was concern that the Government were encouraging bystanders to intervene, even when it was not safe to do so, and when more lives might be placed at risk, including those of professional rescuers. The Government have at least removed one howler, whatever their motive or excuse for doing so, so we welcome amendment 2. It is just rather late in the day in coming.
	As for amendment 1, to leave out “generally” and insert “predominantly”, who knows what that will mean? No doubt we will find out in further satellite litigation, but given the brevity of the Bill, it is surprisingly full of imprecise, unhelpful and novel drafting. One belated and half-hearted attempt at reform is of little practical help. What does “activity” mean? What does “heroically” mean? What does “interests of others” mean? None of those issues has been addressed, only that one point.
	Lord Pannick summarised his view of the Bill by saying that it
	“will stand as a monument to the jurisprudential and policy achievements of Lord Chancellor Grayling. It is a fitting testament to the Lord Chancellor”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 January 2015; Vol. 758, c. 262.]
	Similar sentiments in less elegant language were expressed last week by the former Member for Harlow, Jerry Hayes.
	We are all enjoying “Wolf Hall”, but perhaps with a tinge of regret that the office of Lord Chancellor, in the 500 years since Thomas Cromwell held the title, has gone from the indomitable to the unflushable. Cromwell was the architect of the biggest social and religious changes in the country’s modern history. This Bill, this Lord Chancellor’s last Act, certainly in this Parliament, is literally meaningless, and it is therefore, as has been said, a fitting memorial.

Edward Garnier: I do not need to be as offensive or as rude as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. It is not in the least bit helpful to indulge in such rather childish and cheap personal remarks. The Lord Chancellor has a lot on his plate. I regret that the Bill was part of the menu, but none the
	less Parliament has discussed it and expressed its views on it and I, as a Member of Parliament, have done so as well.
	I thank the Chancellor for the decision to agree with Lords amendment 2 and to remove from clause 4 the words
	“and without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”
	That makes clause 4 marginally better, although I have nothing to resile from in the views that I expressed about the Bill last summer. I thank the Government for that.
	On clause 3, I do not particularly welcome the change of “generally” to “predominantly” because I do not think either adverb assists very much. Clause 3 would have been better had the Government moved a little towards what the former Law Lord, Lord Brown, said on Third Reading in the other place on 6 January at columns 253 to 255. I shall not rehearse all that he said, but I would move a little further than him and say that rather than talking about acts or omissions in line 10, the Bill would be better if, instead of
	“in carrying out the activity in the course of which”
	and so on, it said, “The court must have regard to whether the person responsible for the act or omission in the course of which the alleged negligence” and so on. That would have been a clearer set of words. If the Bill, when it is enacted, is to be of any use to any court, it would be a little more useful had those words been put into clause 3.
	Finally, I agree with what Lord Pannick said when he paid tribute to my very good and noble Friend, Lord Faulks, the Minister of State in the Lords. Lord Pannick said:
	“However, I pay genuine tribute—I emphasise ‘genuine tribute’—to the Minister, who has applied his formidable skills of reason and eloquence, and has done so with consummate courtesy”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 January 2015; Vol. 758, c. 262.]
	I shall not finish the sentence because it is not necessary to do so. I wish that those of us in this House who remain deeply critical of the Bill will none the less remember the hard work put into its deliberations in the other place single-handedly by my noble Friend, who has, like the Lord Chancellor, a lot on his plate, much of which, I am sure, he might have wished was not there.
	There we have it. The Bill will go on to the statute book. I suspect that this particular book will not be opened again, but no doubt we will have other things to think about for the remainder of our busy schedule between now and the general election.
	Lords amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Constitutional Law

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move,
	That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.
	On 18 September last year, the people of Scotland, including tens of thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds, voted in the Scottish independence referendum, and made the historic decision to remain a part of the United Kingdom. The participation of our young people in the vote was truly historic and inspirational to witness. We saw the young people who took part in the referendum in great numbers listen to the arguments, frequently ask the toughest questions, and make up their own minds in a mature and reasoned way. They showed that they were more than capable of being a part of Scottish democracy when they helped their country take the biggest decision we have faced for centuries.
	Evidence suggests that, having listened to the arguments and participated in the debate, 16 and 17-year-olds voted in the same way as the population of Scotland as a whole—to maintain Scotland’s position in our family of nations. This is, of course, welcome in itself, but it also puts paid to the notion that those who are old enough to marry and have children are not old enough to weigh up the issues and decide how to cast a vote. It demonstrated the desire to be involved in an event that would shape the future of the country, and it demonstrated to us all that when people understand the issue before them, hear the arguments and know the facts, they want to use their democratic right to make a difference.

Sandra Osborne: I very much welcome the motion. Does the Secretary of State think it strange that we are saying that it is all right for 16-year-olds to vote in the referendum, but not in the general election? Surely if they are old enough to vote in one election, they are old enough to vote in every election.

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed. We are dealing tonight, however, with the franchise for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local authority elections. I was about to turn to that very point and say that there is no consensus in this Parliament at this time to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the UK general election. My view, however, is that there is every reason to believe that the tide has turned in favour of that outcome. When it comes to extending the franchise in this country, the liberal, progressive argument always wins in the end, and afterwards there is a consensus that it was the right thing to do.

John Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. A few weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister the same question about votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, and he said that although he was inclined to keep the voting age at 18, he was looking forward to a vote. Perhaps the Secretary of State should have a word with him so that we can have that vote.

Alistair Carmichael: We may indeed have that vote in time—who knows what business will come before the House, or by what route? However, to all intents and purposes it will not be practically possible to extend the franchise for the UK general election before May, so I think that the House would do better to devote its attention to scrutinising the order before us tonight, whatever sympathy I might have for the proposition that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to advance.

Brian H Donohoe: The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way, which is very useful. Surely it is possible to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote for the whole United Kingdom, even at this late stage, because in Scotland all the facts and figures are already on the register. Surely that could be replicated across the whole United Kingdom. Would not that be in all our favour?

Alistair Carmichael: Well, not by means of this order. That is the short answer to the hon. Gentleman. The order before the House has been brought forward in advance of other recommendations from the Smith commission report and heads of agreement precisely because it will be very challenging, even at this point, to perform the necessary administrative functions to allow 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in May 2016 and, beyond that, 2017. Those are the practical considerations that he would do well to bear in mind, quite apart from questions about the availability of parliamentary time to get measures through this House and the other place.
	In the run-up to the referendum, pledges were made to the people of Scotland. The three pro-Union parties—the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Labour—all made a vow to devolve further powers to the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom, ensuring that Scotland retains the best of both worlds. Keeping that vow, the Prime Minister announced the day after the referendum that Lord Smith of Kelvin had agreed to lead a commission to agree what those new powers should be. The commission would work with the five parties represented in the Scottish Parliament to make that determination.
	The commission invited submissions from political parties, a wide range of business and civic organisations and the wider public to help guide its consideration of what further powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Following due consideration of all submissions and views garnered by the commission, on 27 November 2014 the report detailing the heads of agreement was published. The report was welcomed by this Government and, as the House is aware, almost two weeks ago we published the draft clauses that will make up the substance of the next Scotland Bill to implement the report’s recommendations.
	However, one of the commission’s recommendations is being taken forward separately from that Bill, and it will be introduced to Parliament following the general election: the recommendation that the UK Parliament should devolve the relevant powers in sufficient time to allow the Scottish Parliament to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections, should it wish to do so. That is exactly what this draft order seeks to achieve.
	The order is made under sections 30 and 63 of the Scotland Act 1998, the Act that set out the original devolution settlement for Scotland and continues to
	demonstrate that devolution is a fluid entity. Several section 30 and section 63 orders have been made under that Act and we do not expect that to change, even with the upcoming Bill. Where a need for change is identified and agreed, those changes are made.
	The 1998 Act specifies what is reserved to the UK Parliament, not what is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Section 30(2) of the 1998 Act provides a mechanism whereby schedule 4 or 5 to the 1998 Act can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the agreement of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments. That allows the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to be changed.
	That mechanism will be used to give the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate to reduce the minimum voting age to 16 at elections to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections. The order achieves that by making several amendments to schedules 4 and 5 to the 1998 Act. That will include the power to legislate to make provision on the registration of young electors in order to give effect to any such reduction in the minimum voting age. Section 63(1)(b) of the 1998 Act allows for an Order in Council to provide for any functions, so long as they are exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in or with regard to Scotland to be exercisable by Scottish Ministers concurrently with the Minister of the Crown.
	The order will also give Scottish Ministers the ability to exercise certain functions relating to the individual electoral registration digital service. Those functions will be exercisable by Scottish Ministers concurrently with UK Ministers, and subject to the agreement of UK Ministers.
	The changes to the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence will provide an exception so that the reduction of the minimum voting age to 16 at elections to the Scottish Parliament and at Scottish local government elections, and the registration of electors in order to give effect to provisions reducing the minimum voting age at those elections, will no longer be reserved matters.
	The order will also enable the Scottish Government to make provision for the use of the individual electoral registration digital service when giving effect to provisions reducing the minimum voting age. I would like to make it clear that Scottish Ministers will be able to exercise those functions—in relation to the individual electoral registration digital service—only with the agreement of a Minister of the Crown. Scottish Ministers will be able to exercise those functions concurrently with a Minister of the Crown in so far as these are exercisable in or with regard to Scotland.

Brian H Donohoe: Could the Scottish Parliament decide in future to lower the voting age further, say to 15 or 14? Does this order make that possible?

Alistair Carmichael: Yes, that is the whole point of devolution. If the Scottish Parliament chooses to make a further change, it will have the legislative competence to do so as a result of this order. Of course, the Scottish Parliament is accountable to the people of Scotland for any exercise of the powers it has.
	Finally, the order also provides that in certain cases the requirement to consult the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner, and to publish
	reports prepared by the Electoral Commission, will apply to Scottish Ministers if they exercise the functions given to them relating to the individual electoral registration digital service.
	Members will realise that in one respect the order goes further than what the Smith commission recommended: rather than simply devolving the powers necessary to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to participate in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections and subsequent Scottish Parliament elections, the order devolves the power to enable the Scottish Parliament, if it so desires, to legislate to lower the voting age to 16 in time for the 2017 local government elections in Scotland.
	That was felt to be beneficial for two reasons. First, there is an issue of timing. If the Scottish Parliament wished to take forward such legislation, the timing of the Scotland Bill would make it very challenging to devolve the necessary powers in sufficient time for the Scottish Parliament in turn to legislate in time for May 2017 without breaching normal electoral rules. Secondly, the franchise for the Scottish Parliament elections is set by reference to the local government franchise. Devolving only the legislative competence to reduce the minimum voting age for Scottish Parliament elections would have meant that the Scottish Parliament needed to separate the Scottish Parliament franchise from the local government franchise, which in our view would have risked unnecessary complication.
	If the approval of this House, the other place and the Scottish Parliament is secured, the order will go forward for consideration by Her Majesty in Council. When the order comes into force, the Scottish Parliament will be able to bring forward the legislation necessary to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in all Scottish Parliament and local government elections. I understand that the Scottish Government intend to introduce this legislation as soon as possible once this order has been made by the Privy Council.
	I have always been a firm believer in votes at 16. With the sheer number of young people participating and voting in last year’s referendum, I believe that that case has become undeniable. This was reflected in the Smith commission heads of agreement, with all the main political parties agreeing that the voting age for Scottish Parliament elections should be lowered to 16. The UK Government fast-tracked devolving the power for this as an exception from the rest of the Smith package so that it could be in place in time for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. I commend the order to the House.

Margaret Curran: On the day that Scottish Labour has set out how we will enhance the vow in our home rule Bill if and when we are elected, it is fitting that we are debating, for the first time since the Smith agreement, powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament.
	It is worth reminding the House of how we have reached this stage. The result of the referendum on 18 September was emphatic. The call for change was equally significant, and it was a call that we heard. Labour promised people safer, faster, better change with a no vote in September, and that is exactly what we have delivered. The cross-party Smith agreement reached
	just 10 weeks after the referendum vote was the first time that all Scotland’s parties had reached that degree of consensus on new powers for Scotland. The Smith agreement gives Scotland modern home rule, with extensive new powers over jobs, tax and welfare, and that is what we will legislate for if we are in power after May. Today’s discussion and agreement of this order should be another demonstration to the people of Scotland that the vow has been delivered and that we are standing true to the word we gave during the referendum campaign. The timetable set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) has been met.
	As the Secretary of State explained, the order deals specifically with the power that was promised in section 25 of the final report of the Smith commission—namely, that control of the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Last year, Labour Members called for these powers to be brought forward quickly, and we are pleased that the Government are now doing so. As the Secretary of State said, it is obviously for the Scottish Parliament then to determine what the franchise should be, but it is clear that all the parties at Holyrood will support the lowering of the voting age to 16. It is right that we are debating these powers today so that we can give a guarantee that 16-and-17 year olds will be able to vote in the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2016. I hope that the Scottish Government will move to ensure that those same young people are able to vote a year later in Scottish local government elections.
	Too many people, too often, are cynical about our young people, but the referendum campaign in Scotland showed many of them at their very best, engaging with politics, getting involved in the campaign, and participating in record numbers in debates in schools and college across Scotland. I am sure that many hon. Members can pay tribute to the debates held in their constituencies during the referendum campaign. The young people in my constituency of Glasgow East were a great credit to the referendum campaign and, in particular, to their schools. They organised very balanced debates to inform themselves and encourage participation.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady is obviously going to congratulate the Scottish Government on introducing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds; I am sure she is getting round to that. What I remember about the debate on giving votes to 16 and 17-year-olds is a lot of whingeing and whining by Labour Members telling the Scottish Government that it could not be done and finding all sorts of reasons why it would not be possible. Does she not recall any of that?

Margaret Curran: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who perhaps has the greatest expertise in whingeing, will join me in paying tribute to those involved in the Smith commission for bringing this forward. If we all agree on something, let us for once stress the fact and say, “Isn’t it good that we’re all agreed on this progress for Scotland?”
	Research by the Electoral Commission has shown that about 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds voted in the referendum—a very high proportion considering that it was the first vote to which they were entitled. I hope
	that we can speak positively about those young people and be constructive in our comments as we welcome this landmark for 16 and 17-year-olds in our country. I recognise the positive energy and enthusiasm that those young people brought to the referendum and can now, I hope, bring to Scottish elections as well. It does not matter whether they voted yes or no; what matters is that they participated, and that is something we want to encourage. What matters is that with this order, and with the actions that the Scottish Parliament will take, we can strengthen our democracy and increase democratic participation.
	The changes that we are discussing have very broad support in Scotland. They have been welcomed by a large body of pressure groups and organisations representing young people, including the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on children and young people, Young Scot, LGBT Youth Scotland, Children in Scotland, the Scottish Youth Parliament, and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. As Young Scot said in its statement calling for votes at 16 in Scotland,
	“Scotland will be viewed as a world leader by fully engaging and empowering its 16 and 17 year olds as fully franchised citizens active in the political life of the country.”
	As has been the case in the past, Scotland can lead the way on this change and show that our young people have what it takes to engage in our democratic process. However, as was indicated earlier, Labour Members would go much further. The order meets the agreement made in the Smith commission on votes at 16 and 17 in Scotland, but we believe that there should not be two-tier voting across the country. As the Secretary of State said in response to questions from my hon. Friends, it is reasonable to ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) did at Prime Minister’s questions, when we will get the opportunity to pursue this policy. If the Prime Minister indicated that there would be a vote, it is reasonable for the Government to say when it is likely to take place. If our young people in Scotland have what it takes to decide the future of their country in the referendum and, soon, the shape of the Scottish Government, they also have what it takes to decide the shape of the UK Government. That is why Labour would extend the franchise in all UK elections so that 16 and 17-year-olds can also vote in general elections. Taking a lead from Scotland, Labour would extend votes at 16 and 17 to the other devolved Administrations, English local government and the London Assembly, truly empowering young people across the United Kingdom. It is about time that our young people were given a voice, regardless of the type of election or where in this country they live. As I said, the Prime Minister was recently forced to concede that.
	It is welcome that the Secretary of State has brought forward this order and that we are delivering these powers ahead of the general election, honouring the commitment given during the Smith agreement. I have raised with him several times the possibility of extending this principle to other areas of the Smith agreement, notably the devolution of employability support. I again push him to listen to Labour’s calls for immediate devolution in that regard and to bring an order to this House to achieve that. He has shown his competence in introducing this order; perhaps he could extend that to
	an order on employability support. Flattery does not seem to be having any impact on him, but it was worth a try, and I will keep trying. Devolving these powers should not wait until after the election. They are another step towards delivering the modern home rule that was at the heart of the Smith agreement. That is indeed the first step in delivering more powers for Scotland. Labour’s home rule Bill, which we intend to introduce in the first 100 days of the next Labour Government, will give Scotland the full powers it needs, as agreed during the Smith commission and announced today. We thank the Secretary of State for bringing this order before the House today, and give it our full support.

Robert Smith: I welcome this order which will deliver on commitments made in the Smith commission. Its timeliness will allow it to be implemented effectively, efficiently, and in time for the Scottish election and future local government elections, and in particular it will allow us to get the register right.
	I wish to reinforce the experience of having 16-year-olds involved in the political system. The referendum did that in a practical sense, but for years many Members of the House have been going into schools and recognising that 16-year-olds have an informed and enthused approach to the political system and engagement with politicians. An important aspect of engaging people at 16 is that they are in a stable environment such as school or college, and many are still in a home environment. There is therefore a chance of getting them registered and involved in the electoral system before they get into the flux and change of life that goes with the upheaval of moving on from school and towards the rest of their lives. If we can engage people at 16, they are more likely to stay engaged with the voting system throughout their lives.
	Many of us criticise short-termism in electoral decision making, but 16-year-olds clearly have the most long-term future in decisions that are made about this country and what is happening. If we can engage with them and get them to think about the future and build on that, we can perhaps take a longer term approach to our voting system. I welcome the order and I hope that the House will see it come to fruition, honouring the Smith commission and delivering votes for 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland.

Graeme Morrice: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important order, which if approved will ensure that the voices of our young people in Scotland are heard. More specifically, it will guarantee that the franchise is extended in time for elections to the Scottish Parliament in 2016, and the Scottish local government elections in 2017.
	I welcome the publication of the Smith commission’s Command Paper, which includes provisions for the conduct of Scottish elections to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, I am proud that Scottish Labour’s calls for the change to be fast-tracked will become a reality this evening, and I urge the Scottish Parliament to take swift action to ensure that changes are in place ahead of those elections. It is vital that we build on the energy and momentum created by the
	participation of our young people in the independence referendum, and grant the Scottish Parliament power to lower the voting age to 16.
	As I am sure all Members will acknowledge, the level of engagement witnessed among our young people during the referendum is a cause for celebration. More than 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds registered to vote, and on the day itself many thousands of young Scots made their way to polling stations up and down the country to have their say on the future of their country. Young Scots had a genuine opportunity to involve themselves in a meaningful process that offered them a real chance of influence. Such levels of participation demonstrate that it is right to enfranchise our young people and lower the voting age to 16. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are more than capable of taking important political decisions. Our young people already contribute much to our society; they have other rights, and a number of obligations are placed on them. It is therefore correct that they should be able to participate in the selection of those who govern them.
	I often visit local schools in my constituency, and I am always impressed by how engaged young people are. During the referendum it was evident that our young people were fully involved with the independence debate, carefully examining the implications of both sides of the argument. Young people are informed, politically interested, and fully aware of the world around them. It therefore makes perfect sense to approve the order and grant 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote.
	The need to lower the voting age is supported by a number of organisations and groups including Barnardo’s, the National Union of Students and the Electoral Reform Society. Lowering the voting age brings with it a number of benefits and can serve to increase engagement—indeed, the Power Commission makes that point:
	“Reducing the voting age to sixteen would obviously be one way of reducing the extent of exclusion for many thousands of young people, and of increasing the likelihood of…taking part in political and democratic debate.”
	Evidence has shown that someone who votes when they first become eligible is more likely to keep voting for the rest of their life.
	I am proud that a future Labour Government will legislate to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK are able to vote in general and local elections. As the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—hopefully soon to become the Secretary of State for Scotland—made clear, Labour will go further, and I am disappointed that the current Tory-led Government do not share that view. Just as it is important that 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland have their say, it is equally important that other young people across the UK in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are afforded the same opportunity. Lowering the voting age to 16 would strengthen our democracy and open it up to a new generation. I urge all Members to support this order, and hope that it marks the first step in the enfranchisement of all 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK.

Angus Robertson: It is an honour and a pleasure to speak on a subject close to my heart. Lowering the voting age is one of the main reasons I become involved in politics in the first place. I joined
	the youth wing of the Scottish National party in 1985, at a time when the Young Scottish Nationalists updated the party’s policy. From then on and until the present day, SNP policy has been that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in all democratic elections.
	I felt so strongly about the issue that it was the subject of my maiden speech in 2001, and I hope the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) does not mind my reading some of it out:
	“Speaking as the youngest Member of the House who represents a Scottish constituency”—
	I think the hon. Lady has taken over that responsibility from me—
	“I am convinced that one change might help to engender an interest in voting among young people: lowering the voting age to 16. That has the support of Members on both sides of the House and I make the suggestion in the non-partisan hope of boosting democracy.
	Does it not strike hon. Members as ludicrous that we can raise and spend tax money levied on 16 and 17-year-olds? Is it not ludicrous that we can pass legislation that affects their working lives and economic well-being? Is it not obscene that we can send young service men and women into hazardous situations where they may give their lives for their country? It is obscene that 16 and 17-year-olds are judged old enough to pay tax, get married or die for their country, but are not granted the equality that enfranchisement brings. As Ministers in this place and in the Scottish Executive consider suggestions for boosting the teaching of civic life and modern studies, would it not help to show 16 and 17-year-olds the relevance of the democratic process if we gave them the vote?”—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 192.]
	That was in 2001.
	I also reflected on the fact that the commitment of the SNP to lowering the voting age goes back much further. One of my predecessors who represented Moray, Winnie Ewing, was elected previously in Hamilton in 1967, and she made her maiden speech on lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. The commitment runs deep in Scotland’s largest party.
	It is fantastic that Members on both sides have praised the independence referendum and the involvement of 16 and 17-year-olds, although I have not yet heard Members from other parties acknowledge that they were able to vote because the SNP-led Scottish Government insisted on it. It behoves Members to recognise that as a significant reason why we are at this stage. Perhaps they will think it noteworthy to bring up in their contributions later.
	The experience to which hon. Members have attested was reflected in my constituency and, I am sure, in every single part of Scotland. We were invited to take part in debates in schools and sit on panels with young people—I went to Speyside high school, Forres academy and the Elgin youth café. I am sure that Members on both sides could attest to these types of events, and as the referendum drew closer, the level of debate among younger Scots about what the referendum would mean for them, regardless of whether they had made up their minds, was fantastic.
	The statistics thus far—there will many more, because several academic studies have yet to report—and early academic feedback are extremely encouraging. The Electoral Commission released a report in December 2014 suggesting that turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds was 75%—significantly higher than among some older age groups. Of all respondents, 60% said they would support a measure allowing everyone to vote from the age of 16; and 97% of the 16 and 17-year-olds who reported
	having voted said they would vote again in future elections and referendums. This is tremendously encouraging and should give great support to those arguing for a wider franchise.

Russell Brown: We should all applaud the turnout of young voters in the referendum, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the difficulty is in encouraging 18 to 25-year-olds to take part in the process?

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, although widening the franchise will make that much easier for future generations, through engagement in schools, through modern studies, and with political parties and local representatives. That will help to join up, in a much more tangible way, the political world with what happens in schools. However, he points out the challenge of those age cohorts who have not had that experience, and we all need to work hard to bridge that gap.
	By enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds, we can encourage schools to hold political debate and involve democratically elected representatives. Some schools have concerns about managing the process fairly, but it is not beyond the wit of those schools to do so, and as we know—because we attended many of these events—it works. All of us, having gone through the referendum experience, will want to ensure it is not a one-off. That we can do it for Scottish Parliament elections is great; that it will happen for local government elections is fantastic; that it will not happen for Westminster elections is shameful.
	I note that there are two Conservative Members in the Chamber. I observe that 58 of the 59 Members from Scotland belong to political parties that support lowering the voting age in Westminster elections, yet it is not happening. It is for Conservative Members to reflect on what message it sends to people in Scotland when yet again decisions are being made, or rather when progress is not being made because there is not a willingness to recognise the democratic wishes of people in Scotland.
	It is unimaginable now that we might go back to a situation in which 16 and 17-year-olds could not vote. I shall spare the blushes of some people in Scottish politics, and not quote their words in the run-up to the referendum.

Pete Wishart: Tell them!

Angus Robertson: My hon. Friend encourages me. I shall give one quote. The Scottish Secretary’s predecessor told the Press Association on 19 February:
	“Sixteen and 17-year-olds should be barred from voting in a referendum on independence for Scotland.”
	It was inexplicable—now it just sounds ridiculous. Why on earth would he say such a thing? I have no idea. Once we have lowered the voting age, nobody will argue that it was not the sensible thing to do. When this place finally gets round to lowering the voting age for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland and the rest of the UK, I shall be all in favour of it. It will play a part in reconnecting younger people in society with the political process, which over time will lead to a reconnection with the whole of society.

Pete Wishart: I am sure my hon. Friend is doing all he can to spare the blushes of our Labour colleagues regarding some of their comments in advance of this order. Does he agree, however, that we now have to work together—it is great that the Labour party has embraced this measure—and ensure that our young people get to vote in all subsequent elections, whether for Holyrood or Westminster?

Angus Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is up to all of us. What will be in the manifestos of the political parties? If the overwhelming majority of Members returned from Scotland are in favour of lowering the voting age, that is what should happen, as should be the case with every other major policy decision.
	This is a rare event in the Chamber. Almost all Scotland’s parliamentarians in this place agree on Scotland’s constitutional progress, but we should reflect on the fact that it was not always that way. It is amazing how when one moves beyond the introduction of such a measure, everyone is suddenly in favour of it—even those who only a year or two before were opposed or highly sceptical. I am really pleased that the SNP and the Scottish Government, when given the chance to put their money where their mouth was, delivered on what was promised decades ago—that younger people in Scotland should be able to vote. That should happen in all subsequent elections, for the Scottish Parliament, for local government and for the Westminster Parliament.

William Bain: It is a privilege to speak in this debate as the chair of the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform, the organisation within the Labour movement that speaks and campaigns for political and constitutional reform. Labour can trace the origins of its commitment to these great causes back to Keir Hardie more than a century ago. It was he who first called for an elected second Chamber and for a powerful home rule Scottish Parliament through strong devolution. I regret we cannot honour the third of his commitments—his strong desire to see the cause of temperance furthered across the UK—but we will honour every element of his commitment to political reform in this modern Labour movement.
	Rarely in this House do debates on statutory instruments range beyond the specific matters they address, but this debate signifies two wider forces shaping the future of these islands. First, devolution and good governance across these islands will be strengthened by the delivery, as promised, of the Smith agreement, of which this draft order is the first legislative stage. Secondly, the rights of citizens across the UK demand a new political and constitutional settlement, including: votes at 16; the replacement of the unelected other place by an elected second Chamber; substantial further devolution within England; and making devolution and human rights protection permanent within our constitutional arrangement. It is increasingly clear that the order must be the first stage in generating a codified constitution for the UK to put all these changes beyond the day-to-day conflict of partisan politics. I shall address each point in turn.
	The strength of the devolution settlement, originating in the devolution referendum of 1997 and the original Scotland Act 1998, is clear in this evening’s debate. An
	agreement between five of Scotland’s political parties on transferring powers in connection with the franchise in Scottish parliamentary and local government elections, resulting in the devolution of those powers in law within a matter of weeks, will ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in next May’s Scottish Parliament elections and in the council elections in Scotland the year after. We are achieving together the progressive cause of extending the right to vote in these elections to tens of thousands of young people in Scotland. This stands as a further testament to the work of the late Donald Dewar in crafting a devolution settlement capable of evolving and meeting popular demand in Scotland, and we will see much more evidence of that in the weeks following the general election this May.
	The incredible enthusiasm and level of engagement by 16 and 17-year-olds in last year’s referendum proved all the doubters wrong, so with this draft order today, the Scottish Parliament will have the power—the full powers—to make full post-16 voting rights a reality in devolved elections. I recall speaking to a young man on the doorstep in Riddrie in my constituency on referendum polling day. He expressed with remarkable insight and knowledge the evidence and beliefs that had motivated him to participate at the age of 17 in his first democratic election. How many more young people will become active in their communities and in wider society and stand for elected office themselves because of their experience in the referendum campaign last year?

Iain McKenzie: Many hon. Members, regardless of political party, have made much of continuing that engagement with young people and getting access to our schools in order to discuss with our young people who are about to be 16 the relevance of politics to their lives. We have seen an awakening among young people, so I encourage each and every Member to carry on with that. I am about to meet 100 young people from Inverclyde schools to discuss such matters on Friday.

William Bain: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he is a champion of engagement in his own constituency. I hope that will be remembered in Inverclyde in just a few weeks’ time.
	All the evidence from Demos and the Electoral Reform Society demonstrates that the earlier young people participate in democracy, the more likely they are to remain voters in the future. Sixteen and 17-year-olds can pay taxes, get married, join the armed forces and act as company directors. It is an absurdity that they have been denied the right to be full members of our vital democratic processes for so long.
	This debate reminds us that we have a duty to make it easier for young people to be able to vote, and it is a warning about the effects of the botched introduction of individual voter registration being presided over by this Government. In its present form, it could have the effect of removing the right to vote for thousands of young people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.
	This is indeed a good day for democracy, but not a perfect one. I hope that most right hon. and hon. Members will not rest until votes at 16 are introduced for elections to this House and for the elected Chamber that must replace the unelected other place. I hope leaders at EU level will show boldness in extending the
	franchise at European parliamentary elections to 16 and 17-year-olds too, offering hope to those currently suffering the most from low wages and high unemployment due to the problems in the eurozone economy.
	The order demonstrates that grass-roots campaigns for political reform can bring change in this House and to our country as a whole. Just as the Chartists campaigned for democratic rights, trade unions campaigned for the enfranchisement of working class people and the suffragettes campaigned for the enfranchisement of women, so today’s order is the further realisation of their ambitions for a society where everyone can participate, and where government, at whatever level, is more responsive and accountable to all the people of this country as a result. The British Youth Council has campaigned tirelessly for votes at 16 for years, and today is the first recognition of the justice of its campaign in parliamentary and local government elections. It will not be the last.
	The debate on this order shows that the governance of the British state is changing and that the pace of that change must increase in the coming years, so we must see a constitutional convention to produce a coherent plan for devolution in England, recommend proposals for an elected senate, consider how the role of human rights protection can be strengthened within our constitution and explore how all our governance arrangements can be made permanent in a single constitution, binding us all as citizens of the United Kingdom.
	These are changes worth fighting for: a modern democratic constitutional settlement that can reflect our common links, but also our diversity across these islands. Today marks the first element of that change, but it also shows us the potential to see what can be if we have the boldness and courage to act early in the next Parliament.

Pamela Nash: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this momentous debate for the young people of Scotland. I am often referred to as a young person in debates such as this because I am the youngest MP in Parliament. I feel increasingly fraudulent about that claim, however, as I must be—now in my 30s—the oldest youngest MP for quite some time! I continue to appreciate being referred to as a young person. [Interruption.] I thank hon. Members for saying that I do not look my age—and I am glad that that will now be on the record for eternity.
	Today’s order will devolve the control of the franchise of the Scottish Parliament to its rightful place—the Scottish Parliament. It seems ludicrous now that that was not done at its establishment. There appears to be a consensus among the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Even the Tory leader Ruth Davidson, who had previously said that she was opposed to this move has reportedly, like many others, changed her view. She said that her referendum experience of young voters had changed her mind. I look forward to her Westminster colleagues following suit. Many others previously unsure about the move to lower the voting age now concede that there is no going back after the referendum in Scotland, where we saw our young people thoughtfully and passionately engage in the debate on the future of their country.
	As I say, there has been consensus, but I was disappointed by the tone adopted by the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and, in an intervention, for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). They seemed to be trying to seek divisions in the debate when there is cross-party support for the devolution of the power and for votes at 16 in elections for the Scottish Parliament. At the time, some did not agree that young people of 16 or 17 in Scotland should have the vote in the referendum. There will be some examples of that, of course, but my overwhelming recollections of the debate and the conversations people were having at the time was that there was support for votes at 16. There was, however, strong scepticism—even from myself, a long-term supporter of votes at 16—about the SNP’s view that the power should be devolved for the purpose of the referendum when they had not called for the franchise to be devolved previously.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady is, of course, right about the consensus: we all agree on all this. Surely, however, she could bring herself to acknowledge the fact that it was the Scottish Government who introduced this measure. No Labour Members have mentioned the role of the Scottish Government, and they seem reluctant to say that it was the SNP Scottish Government who introduced votes for 16 and 17-year-olds first.

Pamela Nash: I welcomed it at the time, and I congratulated the Scottish Government on it. I am happy to do so again tonight, but it was not done on their own—there was cross-party support for it at the time. I welcome the fact that they did it, but there is this overwhelming scepticism about why it had not happened in the past and that over the years of the SNP Government they had not once asked for the devolution of the franchise and the ability to lower the vote to 16. I was disappointed that it took them so long. However, I am happy that the franchise is to be been devolved, and that it is the policy of my party to allow votes for 16-year-olds throughout the United Kingdom and not just in Scotland.
	Let me say a little about my career before I entered the House. As some may know, I was a Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament. At that time, “Votes at 16” was a big campaign. I was very much a part of that campaign, along with the rest of the Youth Parliament, and I am still a keen campaigner today. I remember visiting for the first time, as a Member of the Youth Parliament, a class of 16 and 17-year-olds—who were not much younger than I was—at Calderhead school in Shotts, which is still my constituency. I clearly recall that, when I asked those young people whether they wanted the vote, most of them said that they did not. I have had the same experience several times since, as a Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament and also as a Member of this Parliament.
	Those young people told me that they did not think they knew enough about politics and current affairs to make the decision, and also felt that many of their peers would not take it seriously. I pointed out to them that I knew people of every age who that might apply to, and that no one was suggesting that 40 and 50-year-olds should not be able to vote on political issues, or should
	be subjected to a competence test before being able to do so—and neither should we suggest that. People of all ages should be able to use their knowledge and experience of life to choose who they want to represent them, and in my view 16 and 17-year-olds are no less capable of doing that than those aged 18 and over.
	Some people—and I have heard it in this place—use such anecdotes and polls that show that young people do not want the vote at 16 and 17 to say that they should not be given the vote. I would argue that the level of self-awareness among these young people, and their readiness to research, learn and take their votes seriously, suggests that they are more than ready to take on the responsibility of choosing their representatives—and it is a responsibility. We must remember that, and highlight it. We often discuss the right to vote, but it is not just a right; it is a responsibility as well. It is a shame that a third of people of all ages did not vote in the last general election, and I hope that that will change in the next election.
	My main reason for campaigning for votes at 16 has already been mentioned by other Members in this debate. Lowering the voting age will ensure that many more young people will still be in full-time education as they prepare to cast their first votes. I hope that young people who are still at school or college will learn about the responsibility that they must take, and about the importance and impact of their votes. I hope that they will be more likely to vote because members of their peer groups will initiate conversations about the upcoming election and encourage them to participate. I agree with others that, in casting the first vote for which they are eligible, they will establish a habit for life.
	We often hear about voter apathy, although the Scottish referendum was a recent exception to the rule. In fact, the turnout for the 2010 general election, especially among young people, was higher than the 2005 turnout: it rose from 38.2% to 51.8%. That represents a change in a trend that had lasted for decades. We must nurture the momentum, and encourage young people to participate fully in our electoral system.
	I am delighted that we are taking this important step towards giving a vote in next year’s Scottish parliamentary elections to 16 and 17-year-olds in my constituency and throughout Scotland, and I look forward to the day when that is replicated throughout the United Kingdom.

Alistair Carmichael: With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a few more comments about the order. I am grateful to the official Opposition for their co-operation.
	There has been a remarkable consensus in the House this evening, despite all the efforts of the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who did his best to challenge that consensus by violently agreeing with everything that was said by everyone else. It takes a particular skill to sow division by agreeing with everyone else, and that is just one of the reasons for which I have always regarded the hon. Gentleman as very special.
	I particularly welcome the support of the official Opposition in respect of the order, and, indeed, in respect of the extension of the franchise to the rest of the United Kingdom. However, as one who, like the hon. Member for Moray, has long been a supporter of
	the extension of the franchise to 16-year-olds—indeed, I have supported it throughout my political career—let me gently suggest to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) and her colleagues that, when challenging the rest of us about the current position, they may wish to reflect on the fact that they had 13 years to change it when they were in government and I was a Member of Parliament here, but did not do so.

Brian H Donohoe: rose—

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman intervened during my opening speech to ask about an extension to those under 16. The order restricts the power to the age of 16, which is an honouring of the Smith commitment. Once the draft clauses have become law, however, full devolution will follow, and the position will be as I described it to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he still wishes to intervene.

Brian H Donohoe: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his generosity in giving way. One matter concerns me greatly. We are approaching a general election in May, and the same youngsters who were enabled to vote in the referendum will then be disfranchised. What effect will that have on their future involvement in politics? The point was not made this evening, although I expected it to be.

Alistair Carmichael: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. If I had had my way, we would have made the change many years ago throughout the United Kingdom. However, I can only deal with the situation at hand. As I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman and others, the practicalities and the administrative issues are complex and involved. As a consequence, the purpose of the order is restricted, but it allows us to honour the commitments that we have made. I think it is clear from what has been said from Members in all parts of the House that, throughout the United Kingdom, we are on a journey. On a personal level, let me say to the hon. Gentleman and others that, while it is clear that there will be no change before 7 May for all sorts of practical reasons, it is, in my view, unthinkable that franchise for the 2020 election will not include 16 and 17-year-olds. I think that the move in that direction is now irresistible, but it will, of course, be for the House to make the decision on another day.
	All Members who spoke described the positive engagement that they had experienced in their constituencies and elsewhere throughout the referendum campaign as a result of the participation of 16 and 17-year-old voters, and that was certainly my experience at the time, in all parts of Scotland and especially in my own constituency. One of the more positive memories that I will take from that campaign is of a packed meeting in Kirkwall town hall, which was addressed by me, by my noble Friend Baroness Williams of Crosby, and by a 15-year-old Orcadian school pupil, Jack Norquoy, who was not even old enough to vote in the referendum. It was both humbling and inspirational to observe that level of engagement and participation. It is, indeed, that level of engagement and participation that has brought us to this point, and it is for that reason that I am immensely proud to invite the House to agree to the order.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Road Traffic

That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014, dated 30 November 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 December 2014, be approved.—(Damian Hinds.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 263, Noes 62.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 December 2014, be approved.—(Damian Hinds.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Pensions

That the draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 16 December 2014, be approved. —(Damian Hinds.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 261, Noes 56.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 10, 11 and 12 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Penalty as Alternative to Prosecution) (Maximum Amount) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 8 December 2014, be approved.

Criminal Law

That the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Fines on Summary Conviction) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.

Sea Fisheries

That the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Scheme 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 3363), dated 18 December 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6 January, be approved.—(Damian Hinds.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and EU Restrictive Measures in Response to the Illegal Annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13519/14, a Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, as regards Title III (with the exception of the provisions relating to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the territory of the other party) and Titles IV, V, VI and VII thereof, as well as the related Annexes and Protocols, No. 1351/2014, Council Regulation (EU) of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No. 692/2014 concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and No. 2014/933/CFSP, Council Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2014/386/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol; supports the Government’s aim of demonstrating flexibility on timing of the provisional application of parts of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, as part of an intense wider effort to deescalate tensions on the ground in Ukraine; encourages the use of the Association Agreement between the EU, its Member States and Ukraine to embed sustainable reform, security and prosperity in Ukraine and the eastern neighbourhood; and supports the Government’s aim of fully implementing its policy of non-recognition of the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol.—(Damian Hinds.)
	Question agreed to.

BIRMINGHAM AIRPORT (FLIGHT PATH CHANGES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Damian Hinds.)

Caroline Spelman: It is amazing what an Adjournment debate in Parliament can achieve. On Friday, I had a call from the chief executive of Birmingham airport telling me about some significant changes to the plans for new flight paths, but I shall say more on that in due course. The extension of the runway at the airport has necessitated changes to the flight paths under the airspace change proposal.
	Birmingham airport has been trialling options for two new flight paths, known as option 5 and option 6, since May last year. On Friday, the airport announced that when the trial concludes on 13 February, a modified version of option 6 will be implemented, to include features of the original noise preferential route. I am glad that the airport has come up with an option that risks the least noise nuisance, although we must ensure that there is a trial period to test the modified route, along with continuous work to improve further the airport services, taking into consideration the nearby communities. I was particularly pleased that the chief executive stated that the airport wished to mimic as closely as possible “the old Hampton turn”, referring to a manoeuvre that minimised the impact of air traffic on the nearby village of Hampton-in-Arden.
	However, the overall process of undertaking the flight path trials has been poor, with long-running problems. Back in July last year, I presented a petition here on the Floor of the House that raised my constituents’ concerns about the trials, which I asked the Department to review. There have been many inadequacies in the trials, including aircraft failing to stick to routes correctly and the repeated postponing of the option 6 trial. The local community feels it has not been listened to, particularly in the rejection of its proposal for an option 6a, an alternative flight path that would have minimised noise nuisance. It made detailed submissions to Birmingham airport, highlighting how a departure route that included a turn at altitude could closely replicate the existing noise preferential route and accommodate the extended runway. That option gained a great deal of community support but was rejected by Birmingham airport without any meaningful qualification.
	The Civil Aviation Authority was aware of the alternative option that the community came up with but could not force the airport to trial it. After the initial consultation, options 5 and 6 were scheduled for trialling on alternative months beginning in May 2014. The trials were initially intended to last around seven months.
	Under option 5, the aircraft would have continued straight ahead on take-off, but that would have affected the residents of Balsall common quite badly. Under option 6, the aircraft were to make a 20 degree turn to the right, once 2.2 nautical miles from the end of the extended runway, but that option directly overflies the village of Barston, with obvious negative consequences for residents there.
	Until Friday’s announcement, option 5 had been Birmingham airport’s preferred option. Before the changes to the flight path, aircraft used to turn away from Hampton-in-Arden at a specific distance from the end
	of the runway on the noise preferential route—the so-called Hampton turn. Since the runway extension of 450 metres, the airport has said that the Hampton turn could not be replicated; that a turn at a specified distance must be further than 2.2 nautical miles away from the runway because of so-called obstacles. However, when I asked the airport what those obstacles were, it provided me with a list of incomprehensible co-ordinates, and I was none the clearer.
	In the initial planning application stage for the runway extension, local councillors probed very heavily whether the Hampton turn could be maintained if the extension took place. They were assured that it would form part of the evaluation of options under the separate consultation process for the trials.
	The airport's latest announcement of a modified version of option 6 should replicate the Hampton turn more closely, and I welcome this indication that the airport is listening to the concerns of the community and hope that progress will continue to be made.

Mark Garnier: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and defending the quality of life for her constituents who are affected by Birmingham airport. Many of us agree that expansion of Birmingham airport could benefit the area, so it is vital that the airport has a better working relationship with the community to ensure that its views are heard. We welcome expansion of Birmingham airport, but it must be acceptable to her constituents and not impact on their quality of life.

Caroline Spelman: I could not have put the case better myself. My hon. Friend is quite right that the airport enjoyed previously a really good relationship with the surrounding community. It is landlocked on three sides by residential accommodation, and quite dense accommodation at the northerly end of the runway. It is so disappointing that the difficulty with these trials has damaged public trust. The most important thing now is to restore that trust.
	I emphasise here that I am not asking the Minister to comment on the specifics of options 5 or 6, because, as ever, a balance needs to be struck—what is beneficial for one community may not be beneficial for another, and I have remained strictly neutral between the two. The aim of the flight path trials has been to measure the actual impact of aircraft noise on relative communities—in Barston and Balsall common—rather than relying on theoretical modelling. That information is being used in submissions to the Civil Aviation Authority and it has informed the airport’s decision.
	I want to sketch briefly the timeline of the trials and to highlight some of the issues. The trial of option 5 commenced on 1 May 2014. For technical reasons, it proved very difficult for some aircraft to stick accurately to the initially proposed route for option 6, with accuracy as low as 49% on the northbound turn, so it had to be withdrawn in June. I wonder whether some of the difficulty with trialling the options could have been avoided with better simulation so that they got it right the first time round.
	Once option 6 had been revised, the trials were rescheduled to 13 November, which was, of course, during the winter flight schedule, when fewer aircraft come in and out of the airport. Although the capacity
	of winter and summer should not affect the ability to check the range of noise from different types of aircraft, noise monitoring does not measure the effect of repeated disturbance or its cumulative effect.
	There were further problems with the programming of area navigation aircraft, which meant that the trial of option 6 did not actually begin in November, as scheduled—or rescheduled. One of the flight coding companies, which airlines employ to keep them up to date with correct flight paths, had not provided airlines with the correct information for the revised option 6. The problem was subsequently corrected, but it was not until 11 December that the trial of option 6 commenced fully.
	Although I accept that that may not have been the airport’s fault, the cumulative effect of repeated mistakes calls into question the validity of the trials, and it has been frustrating and damaging to public trust. If you will forgive the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker, it rather feels like the airport has adopted a trial-and-error approach to the flight path trials. As I have said, following a meeting between the CAA and Birmingham airport last week, the airport intends to continue using a modified version of option 6 once the trials have finished.
	Another issue is that the local communities feel they have not been adequately listened to. It did not help that the airport announced that it would review the membership of the airport consultative committee, which is made up of local representatives, just before the trial. The airport proposed to remove the residents associations, parish councils and civic societies from the main committee and place them in a sub-committee, with only the chair of the sub-committee remaining on the revised airport consultative committee to represent the views of the community. That sidelined the organisations that best served the community’s views. Indeed, as the elected Member of Parliament, I was allowed to attend only as an observer.
	As a result of pressure from the council leader, however, the airport has agreed to maintain the groups on the airport consultative committee at least while the trials continue. The airport has also taken other steps to improve community dialogue, including by committing to producing community updates throughout the process.
	The local community was supported throughout by Solihull council, which passed a motion in October stating:
	“This Council supports fair flight paths for take-off and arrival of aircraft at Birmingham Airport to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on communities. We further welcome the involvement of community representatives both at the Airspace Change Forum while trials continue and through their continuing contribution to the work of the Airport Consultative Committee.”
	It was clear that the council did not favour one option over the other.
	The debate so far has centred on communities affected by changes to flight paths from runway 15, which is for southbound departures. However, runway 33 departures—which are to the north from Birmingham—have also changed, and they make up 60% of flights. Changes to runway 33 departures have affected a number of my constituents in areas including Castle Bromwich and Marston Green. Due to the extension to the runway, aircraft are rotating earlier and therefore homes in the
	village are suffering more noise as aircraft are above ground level earlier on take off and make a departure on a much lower angle. However, I was encouraged to hear the airport chief executive say on Friday that, there too, modifications have been made to option 6, which may help to alleviate that noise nuisance.
	In summary, the process of trialling new routes has been poorly done. The impact of the flight path trials has been increased noise pollution and a breakdown in the previously positive relationship between the local community and the airport. I welcome the news that the airport has agreed to consider a modified option 6, but we must ensure that there is a trial period to test the modified route and continuous work further to improve airport services, with consideration given to nearby communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said, the airport is an important attribute and asset of regional and indeed national significance to our country. However, the management of the airport and the adjustments to its expansion in future need to be carried out in hand in hand with the community most directly affected by it, and it is important that the re-engagement with the community rebuilds public trust.

Robert Goodwill: It is a great pleasure to rise to speak this evening, particularly as the House has just voted to increase the heavy goods vehicle limit to 50 mph, which is very good news for the environment, as trucks operate very efficiently at that speed, for the economy and logistics, and for road safety. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) on securing this debate about Birmingham airport’s flight paths. I understand and indeed sympathise with the concerns she has raised on behalf of her constituents, and I would like to thank her for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I had a meeting with her just before Christmas in which she explained to me this complex matter, about which I know she and many of her constituents feel very strongly.
	Although this debate has rightly concentrated on the concerns of some of my right hon. Friend’s constituents, we should not ignore the vital contribution made by Birmingham airport to the regional and local economies. The aviation policy framework cited Birmingham airport as an example of an ambitious regional airport, with its ongoing programme to develop more long-haul services that would help boost the west midlands economy and help ease capacity constraints at south-east airports. I was in Birmingham today, alighting at Birmingham International airport, where I was struck by the number of passengers, many with luggage, who got off at the same time as me—obviously they were using that important regional airport.
	I am sure that the House welcomed the announcement of a Birmingham service to New York in 2015 and increases to services to Delhi and Dubai. We should also not overlook the inaugural flights from Beijing to Birmingham airport in July and August last year. Those were very significant as the first direct flights from Beijing to a UK regional airport. Taken together, they increase the connectivity with important trading partners that a major city such as Birmingham, and the west midlands region, requires. But if we are to continue to
	benefit from a continuing thriving aviation industry in this country, we also need to have an efficient airspace fit for the 21st century. That is a key objective of the Civil Aviation Authority’s future airspace strategy—FAS—which is an ambitious project. Although its prime focus is on the airspace over the south-east, it is a national strategy. FAS is expected to deliver about £180 million a year in savings in respect of fuel, emissions and delays by 2020. I am sure the House will agree that that is a welcome boost to the UK aviation industry and its customers.
	A key component of the strategy is the introduction of new performance-based navigation routes with the use of satellite-based navigation rather than ground-based conventional aids. It is a bit like using GPS in a car rather than relying entirely on physical maps and road signs. When introduced, these new performance-based navigation routes enable aircraft to fly more accurately. That can reduce fuel burn and emissions, and enable a significant modernisation of the UK’s controlled airspace network. However, I know from various meetings I have had in the past 12 months with Members of this House that the introduction of these new techniques can have an effect on flight paths. Indeed, flying more accurately can assist in avoiding centres of population but may mean that some smaller communities are overflown more regularly. Such changes are naturally of particular concern in those local communities. For example, the experience my right hon. Friend has described at Birmingham has similar parallels at Gatwick and Heathrow, but it is the situation at Birmingham we are discussing this evening, and I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on developments at that airport.
	As a consequence of the runway extension, it was necessary for the airport to develop its proposals in keeping with the requirements from the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the CAA’s airspace change process, as well as the air navigation guidance my Department issued in January 2014. In developing its proposals, the key aim was to replicate, as far as is practicable, the existing departure routes. However, in view of the new departure point on the runway, and the need to comply with all requirements and guidance relating to airspace changes, it was not possible to completely replicate the tracks in this case.
	The airport conducted an environmental evaluation of possible options and undertook a consultation with stakeholders, including community representatives, as required by the CAA’s airspace change process. As my right hon. Friend said, the consultation carried out between January and April 2013 saw a high level of community response. During the consultation period, it was clear that although there was some support for the proposals there was significant opposition from specific communities to aspects of them. The airport then took steps to determine whether alternative options could be developed to mitigate some of the concerns raised.
	For northbound departures—Birmingham is unusual in not having an east-west runway—the airport favoured option 4, known locally as the Hampton turn, but it could not be consistently followed due to the operational requirements of performance-based navigation. I understand that no further realistic options are available for consideration for that specific flight path. Although there was an initial issue with the track-keeping of some aircraft as they made the first turn, the level of accuracy has improved significantly since the trials began.
	I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that at a meeting between the CAA and the airport last week, the airport agreed to consider some further corrective design work. The airport hopes that that work will lead to a greater concentration of tracks within the noise preferential route that was consulted on. That should minimise the noise impact for many of her constituents.
	For southbound departures, one of the key issues was the earliest point at which aircraft make their first turn. To answer that, the airport commissioned further design work and developed a new option that was subsequently called option 6. That and the previous southbound departure option, option 5, were consulted on in May 2013.
	In light of those developments, the CAA took the decision to halt its processing of the airspace change proposal at Birmingham to allow time for trials of options 5 and 6. Unfortunately, as we have heard, a coding error by the airport’s procedure design organisation meant that the onboard codes used to fly option 6 were incorrect. Appreciating that difficulty, the airport decided to trial option 5 and the “wrong” option 6 on a monthly alternating basis for six months until the corrected version of option 6 could be trialled.
	The trial started in spring 2014, but it was not until mid-December that all aircraft could fly the revised option 6. The trial of that option is scheduled to complete next week. It is my understanding that in light of the feedback from the trial, including complaint data that seem more favourable this time, the airport is discussing with the CAA the possibility of continuing to operate option 6 after next week. That option can be modified to mimic as far as possible the noise preferential route and, indeed, I have a copy of the letter to which my right hon. Friend referred. The airport would then seek to gain the CAA’s approval for the route to be made permanent.
	The final decision will of course be made by the CAA, the UK’s independent airspace regulator, and that will probably happen this autumn. As the House will appreciate from the debate, the subject is pretty complex, but it is worth noting that Birmingham airport has tried to respond proactively to the views expressed by its local community. I was sorry to learn of the concerns about the airport’s consultative committee. It is clearly in the interests of the airport to establish and maintain good relations with those in its local communities, many of whom are also its customers. I appreciate that that is not always easy, but I hope that the airport will listen to the concerns raised tonight and will act on them.
	I thank my right hon. Friend again for bringing these concerns to the House and I hope that the aviation industry has learned some lessons from the experience at Birmingham that will help communities at other airports that find themselves in similar circumstances. I applaud my right hon. Friend’s tenacity and commitment to her constituents’ concerns. I would not go so far as to say that she has been a thorn in my side, but she must take the lion’s share of the credit for this solution. If her constituents need a reason to support her in May, this is another example to add to the myriad reasons they already have.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.